New & Noteworthy...

Appeal Instead Of Jury Trial For SJA Graduation Protester

By JAMES JARDINE Staff Writer
Thursday September 27, 2007

Five minutes after the jury took their seats in the Boots Wardinski trial, Judge Harold Eaton Jr. thanked them for serving, told them he was dismissing them and, as they filed back out of the courtroom, told them to have a nice weekend.

Instead of the jury trial, the judge, Deputy State's Attorney Kyle Sipples, and defense attorney David Sleigh agreed to file an interlocutory appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court, asking the court to decide a "certified question" of law.

Once the court has taken up the question and rendered an opinion, a new trial will be held. All sides agreed a new jury panel will be convened from which new jurors will be drawn.

Wardinski, 64, of South Ryegate, was scheduled to be tried on a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. According to the state, Wardinski "recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience or annoyance when he, without lawful authority, attempted to disturb a lawful assembly or meeting of persons."

The charge stems from the 2006 St. Johnsbury Academy commencement ceremony held on June 5, 2006. SJA had invited John Negroponte, the parent of a 2006 Academy graduate and the National Intelligence Director of the United States, to be the commencement speaker.

While Negroponte was giving his speech, Wardinski, who was a member of the audience, jumped to his feet and shouted, "You've got blood on your hands" and invited the audience to join him in walking out of the ceremony. He was quickly escorted from the auditorium by an Academy official and plainclothes state police officers. Negroponte then finished his speech.

Both sides agree there is little disagreement on the facts of the case, but there are major disagreements on the law applicable to the case.

Instructions To The Jury

The decision to take a question to the Vermont Supreme Court came after the state and the defense could not agree on the instructions to be given to the jury. The judge's instructions to the jury come after both sides have rested their case. The instructions outline the law and set the guidelines to be used by the jury when considering the defendant's guilt or innocence.

The question the high court will decide is whether legal meanings of "attempted to disrupt" the event and "recklessly create a risk of public inconvenience" are inherently in conflict with one another, since "attempt" implies a considered, intentional act while "recklessly" usually describes an unintentional act. Wardinski's attorney says, in the context of the criminal, an "attempt" is an intentional act done

to achieve an unlawful goal. To Sleigh, "if the attempt is to engage in speech it can't be criminalized" since it is protected under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. It is protected political speech that does not constitute a crime until the speech actually creates a disruption, such as when the speaker cries "Fire" in a crowded theater. Since the state makes no claim that Wardinski actually disrupted Negroponte's speech, asserting only that he "attempted" to do so, for Sleigh, no crime was committed and his client is innocent. For Deputy State's Attorney Kyle Sipples, Wardinski's disruption was not an intentional attempt to engage in free speech, which would be protected by the constitution. Rather, his outburst was an intentional attempt to disrupt the proceeding. To Sipples, Wardinski is guilty of disorderly conduct for intentionally attempting to disrupt an event rather than innocent because his remarks were protected free speech.

Once the Supreme Court weighs in, a new jury may get the chance to decide Wardinski's guilt or innocence.