Thread by @peterboghossian

Currently at the @MrAndyNgo court case in Portland. He’s the plaintiff. I’ll be live tweeting the trial. The defendant waived his right to a jury.

The judge is meticulous in establishing rules of conduct for the media and all those present. I am genuinely impressed with his thoroughness, clarity, and professionalism.

At 37 minutes in he’s still establishing and clarifying rules for the media.

Opening statement by the prosecution is quite strong. Mention of witnesses and video evidence (not yet seen). Robbery in the third degree is the charge.

A very unusual defense. Mentions “undisputed facts”. Stated that the defendant did not want to “permanently deprive” @MrAndyNgo of his property—as opposed to stop the recording that Andy was making.

(Amazing that assault was not a charge after he defendant poured water on the plaintiff and slapped the phone out of his hand.)

Andy is currently on the stand. Describes having water poured on his head by the defendant. He immediately contacted the staff. Going through initial details now.

I want to note that I am *not* a lawyer. If I offer my unlettered opinion it’s just as an observer who has no legal training.

Andy talks about the defendant shouting, “He’s a fascist, he’s a fascist” at him. There are alleged witnesses to this but they have not been called to the stand yet. (So interesting that the defense stated that it’s an unusual case re challenging the facts.)

Allegedly the defendant hit Andy’s hand. (Isn’t that assault?) Allegedly grabs Andy’s phone from the floor and runs. (Amazing to me that the gym staff allegedly witnessed this. Again, they’ve not been called to the stand.) He allegedly shouted “I will fucking break your phone.”

So interesting that there are independent witnesses to this event.

Can any lawyer tell my why defendant is not being charged with assault?

Evidently the defendant was barred from returning the the gym where the incident took place.

Prosecution is currently playing video clip of the event that was recorded on Andy’s phone. Andy’s phone was grabbed out of his hand—it’s all on film.

Cross examined just began.

Defendant is trying to claim that because Andy has 1,000,000 twitter followers that’s why he was targeted. Seems a weak point. Defense is trying to claim (I think) that when someone with a large following takes a video of someone they can be a target.

Defense is asking Andy about other’s criticisms of Andy. Trying to characterize Andy as a provocateur. (It’s unclear what this has to do with the alleged robbery.) Prosecution brings up a relevance objection.

Prosecution “we’re fully outside the scope.” Defense is alleging that Andy’s reporting had led to violence.
Seems defense is really stretching. Asking for speculation. My guess is they’re trying to discredit Andy, though I have no idea what this has to do with robbery in the 3rd

I have absolutely no idea what the defense’s line of questioning has to do with the alleged robbery. Asking whether or not Andy reported on specific events. Seems like leading questions, but the prosecution isn’t objecting. (Again, I’m not a lawyer.)

Trying to catch Andy in a contradiction.

Defense is quite smug, which is interesting given that the line of questioning is leading to an apparent path to nowhere.

Defense left out “fucking” when he repeated the alleged claim of the defendant.

Wow. The defense is now claiming that the gym contract Andy signed stipulated a nonconsensual recording policy. Inference: Andy’s video recording violated the contract he signed.

(This seems like an anemic defense, at best.)

The prosecution has objected to the defense’s line of questioning. To me, it seems completely irrelevant to the robbery—they’re claiming that recording the defendant leads to people being targeted. This is a bizarre defense, given what proceeded.

The defendant was being recorded because he dumped water on the plaintiff and screamed at him. That’s why he was recorded. Odd the plaintiff’s lawyer didn’t mention this.

Finally, prosecution stated: Recording to document an event is totally different from recording for other reasons.

10 minute break

About to resume

A witness comes to the stand. She’s from the gym. She was manager of operations.

Witness asked defendant to return Andy’s phone. Prosecution is showing still photos and video to the witness. Witness states her memory is very foggy.

Amazing. Defense is again bringing up non consensual recording. Asking if anyone tried to stop Andy from recording. Notes “strict policy” of no recording.

(Again, this seems absurd to me. It depends on the context in which one is recording. If one records a murder taking place then this is categorically different from recording naked people in the locker room.)

They’re getting another witness now.

I’m very impressed with the judge. Knowledgeable. Even tempered. Clear. Professional. The perfect demeanor.

New witness. Backward baseball cap and jeans. Super sincere guy. He was the manager of the gym.

Amazing. Defense is asking witness about the recording policy.

Taking a lunch break.

With all this talk about the recording policy and violations of it, if I were the prosecutor I’d ask if dumping water on someone’s head violated the gym’s policies.

Defense apparently has *four* lawyers.

Some issues with live tweeting, esp re videos. Again, judge seems like he’s bending over backward to be fair and reasonable. Upon retiring, my unsolicited advice to him is to teach students how to speak clearly and maintain their cool.

Police officer on the stand now. He seems confused by the prosecutor’s questions—as I am. I’m not sure if his questions aren’t clear or his pronunciation is poor or if it’s some kind of strategy.

Defense is asking the police officer questions. Part of the problem throughout the trial has been that the incident occurred years ago and people don’t remember it well. Details in the case matter, and years have passed.

CORRECTION

@MrAndyNgo is not the plaintiff. He’s the witness and victim. My mistake.

State of Oregon v John Hacker

I’ve been here since 9am and there’s been very little talk about whether or not the defendant’s behavior meets the criteria of robbery 3.

Lots of smoke and mirrors.

The defense claim sees to be that Andy targeted Mr Hacker. This is an bizarre claim that mistakes causality. The reason Ngo recorded Mr Hacker was because he was threatened.

Defense: “Intent had to do with not wanting to be recorded by this person”

Defense asks for judgment of acquittal. Does the state’s evidence substantiate a criminal charge by satisfying requisite criminal intent? Theft requires intent to “permanently deprive” one of their property.

The defense’s argument is that he did not want to be recorded. Thus, it was not robbery.

Even if true, there were virtually no arguments in the last 5 hours that made the case for this. A truly bizarre trial.

Wow! Mr Hacker is taking the stand. Amazing. I’m not a lawyer but I’d urge him to not testify.

Defense asks Hacker if he intended to permanently deprive Ngo of his phone. He said no.

Hacker is talking about racial disparities in health and how unfair the criminal justice system can be. He became an activist after Trump was elected. Claims to be a citizen journalist.

Hacker is talking about his relationship to antifa.

Defendant says he’s vocal about his political leanings. Claims to be harassed and were death threats against him.

[This seems to be a teachable moment.]

Hacker claims the FBI called him recently about threats to him.

The defense is attempting to paint Hacker as a victim who’s being targeted by the right—and thus connect his behavior at the gym to the idea of not wanting to be recorded.

But again, this mistakes causality. Ngo started recording *after* he had water dumped on him.

Lots of smoke and mirrors.

Prosecution should ask, “did you take Ngo’s phone and walk away with it, yes or no?”

Hacker claims there were “Nazis” in a crowd who hurt his friend. (His word, not mine.)

Again, I am unclear about the *actual* relevance of this, as opposed to whether or not his behavior meets the standard for robbery 3

Hacker admits pouring water on Ngo. Admits confronting Ngo about his “lies”. Mentions “the Nazi” again. (Actual quotation.)

Hacker claims he told gym staff that Andy protects fascists. He keeps mentioning not wanted to be filmed.

Mentions how people who protect “Nazis” shouldn’t have gym memberships. (Again, his word. Not mine.)

Lots of talk from Hacker about death threats, Nazis, and fascists.

Defense wants people to make inferences about Hacker’s “subjective beliefs,” not the truth, that goes to his state of mind. This informed his intention.

(This seems like grasping at straws.)

Defense: You said you wanted to “break his fucking phone,” did you intend to break his phone. Hacker said no.

The deputy DA should have a field day with the witness.

My sincere advice: STICK TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

This case has NOTHING to do with Nazis or a large twitter following. NOTHING. ZERO.

Cross examination… here we go!

Are you associated with antifa, “it’s a loose collection and that’s subjective”.

He’s now talking about the Proud Boys. He basically admits to doxxing people but doesn’t use the word doxx.

FINALLY!

Asks about Hacker dumping water on Ngo. Says it was an impulsive decision.

That initiated the entire chain of events. Only at 2:36pm has this been clearly articulated.

Prosecution now mentions Nazis.

Wow. Hacker admits to posting people’s faces on twitter and doxxing them.

“Do you consider what you did violent?”

Hacker: No

Amazing. Deputy DA does not ask further questions. Amazing. I would have asked details about taking the phone, the slap, the return of the phone, etc. Just amazing she did not ask more questions.

On a 10 minute break. About to conclude. This has been a bizarre trial with almost no discussion of whether the actions of the defendant actually meet the requirements of robbery 3.

I just do not understand how anything other than this could even be relevant. Whether or not the defendant thinks there are Nazis running around is completely irrelevant to whether or not he stole @MrAndyNgo’s phone.

I feel like I’m living in a parallel dimension, with someone’s belief about the prevalence Nazis and fascists directly relating to their guilt in a robbery case.

I am not a lawyer. That said, only way I can see one’s belief about Nazis running around being relevant to this case is if the defense wanted to claim insanity.

In case people think I’m off base:

ORS 164.395

Robbery in the third degree

oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_1…

Closing arguments now.

FINALLY, an actual discussion of whether or not the elements of robbery have been met.

The entire trial should have been about this: Taking property by using force.

Period. Nothing else is relevant. Nothing.

Very strong, *relevant* closing argument by the defense. Just stating the facts and how those match with the law. Personally, I would have added that nothing else is relevant.

The judge is a paragon of patience for having sat through hours of this ridiculousness.

Defense now. Claims it’s not a robbery. Claims Hacker is on trial for felony robbery and that this case is about twitter, being recorded, being angry, etc. defense states Hacker did not have requisite criminal intent.

“What matters in this case is Mr Hacker’s intent.” “What matter is his subjective criminal intent.”

Not every taking is a robbery. Makes an analogy to a teacher taking a student’s phone—this does not mean the teacher wanted to rob the student.

“a million twitter followers” yet again. Prosecution asks defense to not refer to Hacker’s statements as “credible”. Trying to paint the actions as “inappropriate”. “This isn’t some back alley mugging”.

Talking about Mr Hacker’s intent. Claims that impulsivity is not a criminal intent to deprive.
More talk about NGO’s twitter follower count. Basically, is there a reasonable doubt about why he took the phone? (So hours of silliness in an attempt to cast doubt on criminal intent

Prosecutor’s rebuttal: There’s been a lot of talk about things that don’t matter. FINALLY.

Ignore all of the noise that is not relevant to the incident. FINALLY.

She calls out the poor analogy between a teacher taking a student’s phone and what Hacker did.

Prosecution: [FINALLY, six hours later] there’s talk about what robbery in the 3rd degree is and whether the behavior meets the definition.

Prosecution shows a PowerPoint slide about the definition of theft.
Judge is asking both lawyers about intent.

Judge is giving his final remarks. I wish I could have recorded this. He’s talking about empathy and the horseshoe theory (my term). Very sage advice to all present.

Judge Eric L Dahlin