I edited the juror’s answers only lightly, but I removed some of my more aimless questions, and some of our conversational exchanges that aren’t really relevant.

If other jurors would like to come forward with their stories, please e-mail us at pieandcoffee@gmail.com.

Some would say that the details of deliberations can’t be revealed without hurting the whole process. But I learned a lot from this conversation, and I hope it will make me a better juror if I’m ever called to serve.

Pie and Coffee: How did the deliberations go?

Juror: Well, as you know, they took a long time. I believe four hours on Friday, another four hours on Monday I believe. You have me to thank for that, to be totally honest, because I was the voice of dissent on the entire deliberation process. The other people had made up their mind fairly early on in the trial, and if I had been chosen as the alternate, if I wasn’t on the jury at all, they would have been in and out in ten minutes with a verdict of “not guilty.”

I just saw things completely different from the other five jurors. I shouldn’t say–we actually came to a conclusion of what we thought the event that happened, with all the different testimonies, we came to the conclusion that “this is the event that most likely happened.” But the other jurors believed that didn’t constitute assault and battery, and I thought that it did. And so that’s where we really differed.

P: You guys also asked the judge, “Is this charge a felony?”

J: Right. I’m not sure who brought that up, but a lot of people were concerned that if we did find him guilty, that he’d be going to jail, and for an offense like this we didn’t want him to have a felony on his record. And judge of course responded that “you’re not supposed to consider those things at all.”

Yeah, the questions that were raised. Because the judge went over the definition of assault and battery before he sent us in. I was trying to argue the case that, according to the definition of assault and battery, he’s guilty, cause he fulfilled all those criteria. And the fellow jury members didn’t agree. A lot of them couldn’t remember the exact components were, so I had the judge print out the written definition. And from there, it became pretty clear to me. I believe the components were: did he touch the victim, did he intend to touch her, did he have any right or excuse to touch her, and was it without her consent or could it lead to bodily harm. And I thought that fulfilled, his actions fulfilled every component of that. And so by the law, I felt he should be guilty. Some of my fellow jury members also felt that yes, he did fulfill every component of that, but they didn’t agree that was assault and battery. They thought assault and battery was when the victim ends up bloody, or beaten, or with a black eye.

They were feeling pretty bad about that, and I said, “Well, we have to go by what the law is. I mean, that’s our job as jurors, to decide by the legality.” We’re supposed to interpret this law, and if you look at all the components, he checked each one, he did it, he committed assault and battery. But my fellow jurors had a different view of what assault and battery was.

P: So after about six hours of deliberation, you guys were ready to be a hung jury. What was it that changed your mind in the last couple of hours?

J: Basically the judge rejected the hung jury verdict. So I come back in–and they weren’t very happy with me in the first place, cause a lot of them wanted to get in and out on Friday, quite a few of them. So at that point the atmosphere started to get hostile–”hostile” is not the correct word, but more confrontational. Like they were clearly upset with me at that point. Cause they wanted to have the day free, they wanted to get out of there, a lot of them didn’t work, quite a few of them were retired on the jury. They just wanted to spend the day not working, they just wanted to get out of there and spend the day doing what they wanted to do: fishing, spending the day with their kids or grandkids.

So they clearly weren’t happy with me at that point. It was a tough situation to be in. After that experience–I didn’t know how long it would take to be a hung jury, and to go alone against five other people, it’s a really tough experience to describe, and you really have to have a sort of indifference to your fellow man in order to keep on fighting against the current. I mean, I think you really have to be autistic or sociopathic.

P: There’s a human element in the deliberations.

J: It’s tough to just keep going on against people like that, unless you’re personally invested in the case–which I hope they would have screened for that.

I mean, I didn’t know how long I would be there, I didn’t know how long we were gonna be there, I wasn’t gonna be that cruel to my fellow jurors. And also–it was just a tough situation to be in, I’m having a hard time expressing cause it’s such a unique situation, where there are five people against you. I knew I’d feel regret if I went along with their verdict. And yeah, I kinda feel bad about it, but at the end of the day–you know, I’ve been thinking this out. He didn’t intend to hurt her. That was the major thing we all agreed on: he didn’t intend to hurt her. I highly doubt he’s going to do something like this again. It’s not like we’re letting a convicted criminal go free and roam the streets. So I guess at the end of the day that’s why I eventually decided that if I have to give a reason–but I’m not satisfied with that. I wasn’t satisfied with the verdict, I wasn’t satisfied with my five other jurors. I felt they didn’t interpret the law as it was meant to be interpreted.

P: What was the jury’s opinion of the different witnesses’ credibility and testimony?

J: A lot of my fellow jurors agreed with the defense side, for the most part. They really felt credibility with the two young girls. They really thought that testimony was very key. They really thought that Sarah Loy tripped over the 13-year-old girls’ foot, it made a very clear impression in the jurors’ mind. And we all agreed on that, no one else could refute that. So yes, Sarah Loy tripped over her foot. I was trying to explain that the only reason she tripped over the 13-year-old girl’s foot was because she was moved, pushed, escorted in that direction. And so I thought the defendant, Larry Cirignano, should have some liability, should be held responsible for that. But the jurors didn’t agree. They said, “Well, his hands weren’t on her at the time she tripped over the 13-year-old girl’s foot, and so he should be let off the hook.” And I didn’t buy it, I thought that was a very fishy argument. Kind of akin to, I tried to explain: If you push me off a cliff, and I teeter back and forth and then I fall, you’re off the hook because your hands weren’t on me at the exact time I fell?

Like I said, there’s a lot of differences of opinion with me and the other jurors.

But to get back to the St Peter Marian student, a lot of the jurors believed that, Oh yes, Sarah Loy, she was pushed down, and the 13-year-old girl–or the 16-year-old girl, I get those two confused–that she testified that she hit the pavement, looked up, saw people were watching, and then went back to the ground again. And the five other jurors believed that. I thought that was something a 13-year-old girl would do. That’s not something a 28-year-old adult would do. And I thought yeah, the 13-year-old girl probably construed that as happening. Cause I work with youth, I’ve been working with youth my entire adult life. I see what happens with the 13-year-olds. They do things like that. But that’s not something an adult does.

I think there was a lot of bias on the jury. I think a lot of people had made up their minds on day one, honestly, without hearing all the evidence. Just from statements that were made.

P: Well, you know, it’s a bunch of people. I think the jury is asked to do something that’s impossible. That would be autistic, to listen to people making really passionate statements for three days, and come to no opinion about that.

J: It wasn’t a good experience for me, honestly. Like I said, I don’t like fighting with people. But that’s what I ended up doing for two days. And I’m usually the most easy person to get along with, I really am. and just fighting with people was against my nature.

But yeah, comments that were made on day one, like “I think the ACLU is just doing this for publicity,” and “She’s just probably faking it, she probably just wants the attention.” I mean, things like that. On day one! And this is when we’d just heard the prosecution’s side.

P: Watching the jury, I thought they were inscrutable. I couldn’t read their body language at all. Everybody seemed pretty unhappy the whole time.

J: Yeah. I actually enjoyed the trial, I enjoyed hearing the evidence. I’ve never been on jury duty. I liked that experience a lot. I was surprised I would, because I don’t watch any of those court shows or anything like that. Even when they were doing their boring sidebars, I was trying to figure out, “What are they saying?” The whole deliberation process left a sour taste in my mouth.

P: Thanks for being on the jury. Thanks for going through several days of misery on behalf of civil society.

J: Lemme tell you, it wasn’t easy.

We couldn’t believe a settlement wasn’t reached in this case. All of us thought this was a tremendous waste of the taxpayers’ money, and our time, and the court’s time, and everyone’s. It seems that this whole thing could have been solved with a simple apology.

If you want to talk about arguments in the jury. I believe, Reverend Payson? That was his name? One of the jurors said, “Oh, his testimony seemed really shady to me,” and I said, “Shady? This is the only guy to help her when she fell down. This was the most noble guy in the entire crowd. Everyone else is just standing and looking at her, and she’s down on the ground, possibly in pain, possibly hurt, no one knows, and he’s the only one who comes over.”

Those were the sort of arguments I was having in the jury room.

I should have also clarified that my fellow jurors were saying, “This should have never gone to trial, because she shouldn’t have pressed charges,” and I was saying, “This should have never gone to trial because he should have issued an apology.”

P: I’m not sure to what extent Sarah could have withdrawn the charges. [blah blah blah] People really want to make this about gay marriage.

J: I know! And . . . I was trying so hard to keep this element out of the deliberations. I was trying so hard because, I kept say, we’re not judging, you know, whether gay marriage is right, gay marriage is wrong, that’s not what we’re judging. It’s not going to impact the Catholic church. Our hole job is to judge: Did he commit assault and battery, but the law? I think people’s biases got in the way, is what I think happened.

P: Have you ever read about jury nullification?

J: I heard about this term after the fact, of course.

P: This sounds to me like a perfect case of jury nullification. This is where the jury says, we have decided that this should not be a conviction, it just doesn’t seem reasonable, and we’re not that interested in the law. And the jury is asked to not do that, but the jury can do that. Who’s going to stop a jury from doing that, right? Nobody’s monitoring the deliberations.

J: We all agreed, we came to a consensus on this one issue, that piecing together everything that happened, the most likely scenario was: Sarah Loy made her way through the crowd, put the sign at her chest on the first step, stood there for a minute, people yelled at her to get down, she took a step down, stayed there with her sign to the audience, Larry Cirignano saw this, came across the podium. This part were a little bit in a debate on, but somehow he touched her. I said it was probably a combination of having his hands on her shoulder, and then he switched to his hands on her back. So somehow he touched her, moved her into the audience. Pushed her, moved her, escorted her. And moved her into the crowd, and right when he turned around, she turned around to see who it was, and it all happened so fast, in that instant she trips over someone’s foot to see who had just pushed her, and falls to the ground, bruising her elbow, shoulder, and lightly hitting her head. And that’s what we all agreed happened based on all the different conflicting testimonies we heard. The ones that agreed, the ones that disagreed, and the ones that were completely out there, like the person that said Larry Cirignano never touched her at all. Where did that come from?

It was amazing to see how different people see the same event. Just amazing. It’s remarkable, that’s what we all agreed happened. It’s just that they didn’t think it was assault and battery, and I said, “Well, according to the law it is.”

End of the day, like I say, he didn’t intend to hurt her, he’s not going to do this again.

And we just all thought it was a tremendous waste of time.

Trackbacks

• Worcester Magazine
• A Jury’s Mind, Worcester Style
• Bay Windows

Richard Nangle, he of the recent court testimony in the Larry Cirignano case, has left the Telegram, and is moving onto the state Department of Social Services.

First Milton Valencia left for the Globe, and now RN’s gone . . . this leaves very few people on the Telegram & Gazette staff I trust to do a thorough, accurate job of reporting local stories.

Related: T&G circulation collapsing, T&G prints election results wrong twice in a row, T&G reports City Council vote exactly wrong.

Below: Maybe it’s too goofy a picture for a sad event, but I prefer to remember the good times. Richard Nangle reports on Mr. Hetero.

Bottom line, the ruling in the Commonwealth vs Cirignano trial proves Sarah Loy had no right to disrupt the “Let the People Vote” rally on December 16, 2006. Therefore, there is no reason to pursue the criminal complaint against her.

Know Thy Neighbor:

KnowThyNeighbor received a telephone call from former Catholic Citizenship Director Larry Cirignano, last evening to tell me that late Friday afternoon, Shari Worthington officially pulled the papers ending her criminal complaint which accused Sarah Loy of “Disturbing a Lawful Assembly.” By Cirignano’s account, Worthington did this as an act of good grace on her way to bringing her teenage daughter to Children’s Hospital for a serious back problem.

There were no strong emotions on anyone’s face as the verdict was announced. Cirignano was mostly impassive, with the occasional mild smile. Loy and her supporters frowned a bit, but then everyone was frowning as the jury’s deliberation dragged on for its second day, and a hung jury looked increasingly likely.

Sarah Loy had no comment. Bay Windows has a statement from Cirignano’s lawyer. I’m hoping either they or the T&G can get some comments from jurors.

When the jurors first appeared in court this morning, the foreman had shaved. The judge sent them out to deliberate.

After an hour, they were back with a question, or rather more of a statement. It began, “Your honor, we cannot come to a consensus,” and ended, “We are at an impasse.”

There was a brief recess while the lawyers conferred.

Defense: We don’t have an agreement.

Brought up subject of “Rodriguez charges.” (Someone who knows the law can maybe find a good link.) The judge will give the jurors more instructions. Defense wants part of the instructions switched, since the Commonwealth bears the burden of proof, but the judge says no.

Judge: If the jury is deadlocked, I’m ready to empanel another jury today.

Prosecution is unsure of witness availability.

Break.

Judge & jury are back. Judge re-reads the jurors’ statement. Reads them additional instructions on examining issues with respect to others’ opinions, etc. They shouldn’t expect an additional trial would have a better jury or clearer evidence. The defendant is to be given the benefit of the doubt. Asked to deliberate further.

Recess.

Everybody I’ve talked to is pained by the thought of another trial, and just wants this to be over, one way or the other.

At 12:30, we’re back in the courtroom, and the jury says not guilty.

I’ll be very curious to hear what the jurors have to say about the deliberations. Based on their questions to the judge, I’d guess that most of them agreed there was unwanted touching involved here, but were unwilling to use a strong term like “assault” to describe it. (However mild the touching can be by the letter of the law.)

When I arrive, on the stand is…

Larry Cirignano

An elections “advance man,” govt and politics work, worked with various Republican presidents. Got “roped into the gay marriage issue” following some events in 2003.

Describes the work of an advance man. Deals with all details for a VIP at an event. Coordinates with law enforcement and private security.

Describes “catch and release.” When someone approaches a speaker or unfurls a banner you get them out of there right away and release them. “‘Catch’ is to get them off the stage.” Describes it as “shock and awe.” (I have no idea what he’s thinking of, but this seems like precisely the wrong metaphor for the use of minimal force.) You talk to them first. Never put your hands on someone. You can guide them but never physically get involved in an altercation.

He’s received training in this, first with Secret Service (in connection with 1984 prez campaign) and several times since. Also the rules, regs, etc of security.

Has he been to events where protestors tried to take over a stage? Objection. Sidebar.

In 2006, was he gathering signatures for the anti-gay-marriage amendment? Yes, spent 2 years leading the effort for the Catholic churches. 2 year effort by him and others.

Tries to ask a question about the way this amendment would get passed. Objection. Sidebar.

Nov/Dec 2006, he and others organized a series of rallies. (I think he names rallies in 4 cities.) Springfield rally was the week before Worcester. Was it disrupted? Objection and long sidebar.

Were any other rallies disturbed when he was present? Yes.

Catch & release–you’re not supposed to grab them. You’re supposed to “guide, escort.” Touch them with your arm or shoulder.

Worcester rally had 2 permits. He came with Bill (?) House in a van with about 100 signs on poles. When the pro-gay-marriage guys came they tried to take the stairs and were told they were not permitted there. The counter-protestors were generally back toward the street.

He was carrying a portfolio at the rally. Confirms theres a scene in the video of the portfolio in his hand. Shari Worthington was the emcee, someone sang, Cirignano said a prayer. Mineau did his speech. Police were not in sight. He was behind the speaker to the north side. (Looks like the podium was roughly between him and where Loy was to stand.) Saw someone come in from the edge of the crowd with a sign and walk to the front of the podium area.

She was “bantering” with the audience.

His first thoughts were warning, danger, look out. Figured out it wasn’t his group’s message on the sign based on the reaction of the crowd. Loy stepped down from the second stair to the first step, then down to the audience level.

“I was afraid that a fight would break out.” He believed the permit gave him a right to–? Objection.

So he saw Loy and decided to take action. He went over, went alongside her, said something to her like she should go. Gestured the way with his portfolio. She didn’t respond, but she moved. He had his right arm on her back with closed hand. Hit her or touched her? C shrugs. “Touched her.” You would only open your hand to defend yourself. Just a matter of getting her into the crowd and releasing her. The crowd parted before them. He moved her 5-10′ and released her. Arm against her back was continuous motion. “It wasn’t pressure to push her, it was guidance.”

“As I recall, my left hand’s up, Ms. Loy is going into the crowd.” He left and went back to the podium. She never turned around directly to face him. Felt her start to look around as if she were going to stop when they got to the crowd. Did you ever see her face or see her fall? No. Miss Loy testified that she walked backwards as he walked forwards. Is that what happened? No.

So he went back and had his portfolio.

An officer came up to him, asked for ID, asked what happened. So was he charged with assault and battery? Sidebar.

Has he heard the charges read against him? Yes. Did he assault, batter, and beat her? No.

Cross: Was he a policeman? No. He was there early? Yes. Did he direct counter-protestors on the stairs to talk to police? Yes. Did he talk to police about catch & release? No. C&R is a fishing term? Yes. Prosecution defines catch and release. If you do C&R wrong the fish gets hurt? Yes.

Was this a passionate rally? Yes. Was he a passionate speaker? Hope so. Mineau was passionate? Yes. Did it get people’s adrenalin going? I suppose. Was he alone at that point? No. Loy’s back was always to Mineau, both on the steps and at the ground level. She kept stepping further away from Mineau? Yes. Was she closer to the audience than to Mineau? Yes. And when she approached she kept moving towards the group? Yes. And he directed her to the group? Yes. She didn’t see him coming.

“I wasn’t protecting Mr. Mineau.” Did he tell Wells and Murray he pushed her? No. Did he tell Wells he was afraid she’d back into the podium? Yes. But she was moving away from the podium? Yes. “I was protecting the audience at that point from having a fight.”

Redirect. Shows him a photo. Prosecution said she was 19′ away. (I’m not sure where he was getting this from, I thought he was confused but he brought this up again in his closing argument.) They establish she wasn’t 19′ away.

Did you know what Loy was going to do? No.

That’s it for Cirignano.

Defense rests.

Prosecution calls….

Sgt Wells

After he talked to Loy on the ground, what did he do? Went to the City Hall entrance and talked to Cirignano. He asked Murray to interview people, doesn’t remember how long afterwards. When people approached him about the incident, he sent them to Murray. Before seeing her on the ground, he doesn’t recall seeing her within the perimeter, and didn’t escort her out. (You’ll remember the elder McCarthy remembered this happening, though no other witness does.)

Cross from the defense. Did he move some people back to the street? Judge asks for a clearer question. Did he move anyone out of the crowd who was a counter-protestor? He just kept a walking area free. There’s a bus stop there. He moved more than one person.

Wells steps down.

Evidence is closed.

More discussion about jury instructions! Defense says they must prove touching and lack of justification. Wants a more expansive instruction than just the word “excuse.” His cited case law is from 1854. (Judge was amused by this yesterday.)

Wants concept of justification to be explained. Justification is lost if there’s excessive force. Wants jury to know the group had a right to exclude opposing messages.

Judge: That’s not relevant to the A&B charge. Defense’s reasoning would mean that anyone with and anti-gay-marriage sign could have removed Loy. Cirignano wasn’t in lawful control of the property. He’s not even on the permit, that was Mass Family Institute. There was no evidence about his relationship with MFI.

Defense says please please instruct them on justification.

Judge isn’t aware that Cirignano had the right to touch the defendant. No evidence that he was a security guard or something.

Defense: Every unwanted touch isn’t assault. Please tell them about justification.

Prosecution wants “however slight” in the instruction.

Judge is pretty much going to give them the model instruction.

Judge may give them the “humane practice” instruction, which relates to statements from the defendant introduced into evidence from other sources. Neither side wants this, so the judge won’t give it.

Break. One of the witnesses and I test the newly-silenced courtroom doors. The latch on the inner door still closes loudly. The courthouse is still pretty new.

We’re back, with 9 Cirignano supporters in the audience, 6 Loy supporters, police, and press.

Defense closing argument

We’ve proved Cirignano didn’t push Loy down. Describes the rally scenario. Evidence is clear that she held the sign up to her chest. Cirignano didn’t know what she was going to do. He escorts her away with his right forearm on her back. She foes into the crowd, turns, and trips on the girl’s foot.

Reviews evidence. Disses most of the prosecution’s witnesses. Rev Payson is in a different place on the video than where he described. You can’t see Nangle in the photos, and one witness placed him elsewhere earlier. Plus these guys talked quietly when they were supposedly pointing out where they were, which means they were lying.

(This is a pretty outraged and angry summing up. If a juror liked Cirignano, I bet this energized that juror, but if you kinda don’t like the defense’s case, I think this would turn you off. But this guy is a good lawyer and is probably doing the wise thing.)

Battery charge. He expands on right, excuse, justification.

If Loy hadn’t fallen would we be here? No. And we know Cirignano didn’t cause her fall.

Prosecution closing argument

This case can be described in 30, 15 seconds.

Juries don’t return verdicts on innuendo or sympathy but on the law. Assault and battery could include a beating or push to the ground, but doesn’t require it.

Cirignano spoke to 2 officers that day, Murray and Wells. (Brandishes Indymedia photo of Cirignano in his bad sweater.) Did Cirignano explain catch & release to them? No, both times he used the word “push.”

The commonwealth doesn’t have to prove how she fall, just touching.

Wasn’t Donna Terestre a soft-spoken, credible witness? Etc. etc. (He doesn’t say too much about his other witnesses.)

This closing statement was good. I thought he could have done a better job cross-examining people, but he did a good job here.

Judge charges the jury

Judge: You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not.

Assault & battery involves touching without right or excuse + intentional touching + touch likely to cause harm or is unwanted. (You can google the definition I’m sure….)

Near the end of instructions, there’s a really long sidebar. I wonder what the jury thinks of it. I think they look at the permit at one point.

Turns out the eighth juror, who disappeared after the first day, had dental surgery scheduled. Now it’s time to pick one of the 7 jurors as the alternate, so that the remaining 6 can deliberate.

(Note that I’m totally convinced it’s going to be Not Guilty, and I’ve written a big NG at the bottom of the last page of my notebook to ease myself into the disappointment.)

The youngest juror is picked as the foreperson.

Lunch break.

A guy comes in to the courtroom and tries to get the court reporter’s recording system working again.

The jury has some questions:

1. Request, in writing, the definition of assault.
2. Does the permit allow MFI to perform security, and by whom?
3. Can we watch the full video?

Judge can have the A&B part of the jury instructions put into writing. No objections.

Judge: Problem with request #2 is there’s absolutely no evidence relating to it.

Defense says they do have the ability to do security.

Judge wantes to say that they should decide based on the evidence they heard. Because there was no evidence. Judge to defense: You’re talking about the law, I’m talking about the evidence.

#3: Evidence is closed, and they only watched a portion at the trial.

#1: Do you want me to ask them if they meant assault and battery? A note is sent to the jury.

#2: Defense wants to object to the judge’s answer for the record.

Jury responds to the judge’s question: Yes, assault & battery. They add this question: Is assault and battery a felony?

Judge: As a matter of law, it’s a misdemeanor.

Prosecutor wants judge to respond to new question #4. Defense says no answer.

Judge won’t speculate why they’re asking the question.

Defense says, it’s not a felony but it’s still a crime.

Judge says sometimes he includes in jury instructions a part about how they should disregard sentencing consequences, but he didn’t in this case.

Both attorneys agree that’s a good way to handle it. OK, judge will send it to them.

Jury returns. Judge runs through questions and answers.

#2&3: You’ll have to use your collected memories.

On #4 I think he’s reading his standard statement to them.

The jury has another question. They’ll write it down. (I think they don’t end up asking this one, but the actual situation was unclear to me.)

The jury leaves.

Something like 30 minutes later, the judge returns in his shirtsleeves and asks us about whether the sound system is working. Consensus is that it could be better.

Another hour of waiting around and chatting. Michael Ball is entertaining me with stories about whatever. I am so tired at this point, I feel like a zombie. Talk to Cirignano again, this time a real conversation. Larry, when you read this I hope you’re feeling well.

At 4:30, the jury returns. They’ve been deliberating about 4 hours. We adjourn till Monday.

This week, Mike is joined by Brendan Melican.

You can download the mp3, subscribe to the feed, or see other formats.

First: Worcester has been attacked by winged invaders. Then: If you’re reading this, then you know Mike’s been sitting in on the Cirignano trial this week. Brendan is excited about his upcoming Mayoral Candidate Forum at the Dive Bar. No word if the candidates will be drinking, but Brendan will. Talk about casinos in Massachusetts, and Mike gets spammed by City Council Candidate John Mahoney.

Correction: I say Bill McCarthy in the podcast, but this was a mixup on my part. McCarthy is no longer running, which is why Mahoney was able to re-enter the race. Many apologies.

To get an e-mail each week alerting you of the new episode of 508, join the e-mail list:

We won’t share this list with others.

She arrived during the first speaker of the rally.

She and the defense lawyer determine her position.

Some counter-protestors were moving into and out of the crowd.

She asked a policeman to remove 2 counter-protestors, and they did.

Her daughter was 3-4 people deep into the crowd.

She saw Loy arrive, approaching from the South with an ACLU sign. She identifies “Ronal Madnick of the ACLU” as being there. Defense wants to ask her more Ron Madnick questions, but there’s an objection and he drops it.

She saw Payson there and locates where she saw him. I couldn’t see the diagram at this point so I’m not sure what was going on.

She saw Nangle at the rally near the steps. (I think he said he wasn’t near them.) She went over there so her son could stand on a step.

She saw Sarah Loy with her sign and a policeman asked her to leave and she held it higher. Another man had been standing in that place and she asked the police to move him and they did.

This is a confusing piece of testimony, because no police or other witnesses have said anything about Loy disrupting anything and being moved by police. In fact, almost everyone’s stated that the first time they noticed her was just before Cirignano approached or when she was falling.

She saw Loy later in the crowd, holding a sign in front of her. At this point Ms. McCarthy was back in the place in the crowd where Loy was to fall. Cirignano is nowhere to be seen. She pushed her daughter out of Loy’s way, and Loy tripped on her daughter’s foot. She has a pretty detailed description of how this tripping worked. Loy fell on her right side, put her hand out to catch her fall. (I think others described Loy as clinging to her sign the whole time.) Loy looked up, fell back down, assumed the fetal position. No visible wounds or marks on her. She didn’t hit her head. Nangle and Payson were not in the area.

The police came over, then Loy’s husband, who asked what happened. Then Ron Madnick approached.

Throughout the testimony this afternoon, the phrase “Ron Madnick of the ACLU” is said as often as possible. I was surprised the defense didn’t start questioning with: “Where do live?” “Worcester.” “Is that not the home of Ron Madnick of the ACLU.” “Sadly, yes.”

She saw no one touching Loy as Loy came through the crowd.

Loy kept saying to police, “I have a right,” but they kept her back.

Loy said, “I want him arrested.”

Witness told Sgt Wells what she had seen. Did Wells or Murray ask for a statement? No, they said they were all set. Did the police take her name or contact her later? No.

The defense shows a video of the rally. There’s a little technical difficulty. The video is from during Mineau’s speech. An effort is made to locate some of the witnesses, I presume these locations being somewhat different than their testimony. (But I can’t see the diagram of City Hall Plaza at this point.)

It struck me that you can barely tell there’s a “buffer zone,” and that people with “Let the People Vote” signs are standing all over the place. The perspective seems a bit weird, and there’s often not a good view of the curb to orient the viewer.

The cameraman veers deeper into the crowd after Loy has fallen, capturing the police as they enter the crowd. I think the defense was preparing to impeach Loy based on some exchange between her and Wells in this tape, but if so we didn’t see that part. (I know there are a couple videos on the internet, not sure if this one is. The one I watched was just people yelling and was boring, so I haven’t been keeping up with the internet videos.)

Witness didn’t see Cirignano push her, or see Cirignano there at all.

Cross: Have you seen this entire video? No.

Witness confirms she saw Loy on the step before the incident and Sgt Wells removed her. This was like 10 minutes before the incident.

After Wells talked to Loy, witness talked to Wells.

She learned that Cirignano had a show cause hearing. She lives in Worcester. Did she go to the police? No.

Locates herself in photo.

Was she there as a rally supporter? No, she was there to meet her husband so they could go ice skating later.

Susan Terkanian (sp?) of Spencer

She was at the rally. She can locate herself in a photo.

She was on the first step, and saw Loy holding her sign inside the perimeter. People were asking Loy to please go back. Loy was not more than 10′ from her. Loy stuck her nose up in the air and shook her head No. Cirignano came up with a portfolio in his left hand. He put his forearm on her back.

When he started trying to move her, she “sat back on her heels” and resisted. Once Loy was in the crowd, witness saw no more. Never saw Loy turn or walk back from him.

Cross: Confirms that Loy couldn’t see Cirignano coming. Witness had been there since the beginning of the rally and was there on the step the whole time. Never saw Loy until the Cirignano incident.

Jay Guyeltte (sp?) of Worcester

He’s wearing a shirt, tie, no jacket, and jeans. Schlubbiest witness so far.

He was at the rally, at the end of the southern arm. He was “above the steps,” 9:00 from the podium. Saw Loy come to the front of the crowd, close to the steps. Cirignano came from behind the podium to Loy. Not sure if he had some sort of notepad. As Cirignano walked back there was a notepad in his hand or under his arm. Didn’t see any contact or shoulder touching. After something between Loy and Cirignano, she went into the crowd, and so did Cirignano, then they separated. She went down, changing her angle of movement, with Cirignano about a step away from her.

Cross: Establish he was there the whole time, and saw at least 2 police, and saw them escort one person away from the stairs. He didn’t see any police escort Ms. Loy.

Loy did something when Cirignano approached, he isn’t sure what. He can’t say anything about her stepping off the step.

He’s spoken to maybe a dozen people about the incident since it happened. (FYI, I think I’ve spoken to dozens and dozens, and I wasn’t even there when it happened.) He blogged what he saw and e-mailed Nangle about it. A comment on his blog suggested he contact the police, and on Dec 29 he did.

He told Detective Sullivan he didn’t see Cirignano touch her. ADA points out that the incident narrative report says he saw Cirignano push her. But he says he didn’t tell the detective this.

(At this point we should note that there’s a big diagram of City Hall Plaza courtesy of the defense, and that from an information design point of view it is terrible. When you’re on the plaza, the most memorable feature is the City Hall staircases, which aren’t on the picture. I think some of the witnesses are disoriented when they first see the diagram.)

There’s a break, after which the defense calls…

Detective Sullivan

Shows Sullivan the narrative report. Points out where Jay G is mentioned. Did you conclude he was a Mass Equality supporter? (Pro-gay-marriage.) Did you think he was a counter-protestor? Yes.

Sidebar.

Cross-examination. Did Jay G tell you whether he saw Cirignano push Loy? Yes he did.

Redirect: Did you believe Jay G was oppose to the main rally? Answer: I didn’t ask anybody while I was talking to them. But I thought he was a Marriage Equality guy. Witness says something about going online to check into the blogs and fringe groups.

(It seems crazy that Jay G would tell the Detective anything like this, because the day after he wrote something clearly different in his blog post.)

Shari Worthington

My hat off to the second witness/blogger of the day.

Walking with one crutch. Worcester resident. She was at the rally and helped prepare the permit. Was standing behind the podium off to one side. (Here again I can’t see the diagram.)

She saw Loy in front of the podium with a sign facing the crowd, holding it in front of her chest.

Witness thought to go talk to her but saw Cirignano go to her. He “guided her into the crowd.” He had a portfolio under one arm, and he touched her back somehow, hand or arm. Didn’t see hands on shoulders or him push her down.

Before Cirignano and Loy went into the crowd, Loy turned to look at him. She was facing the street as they moved into the crowd. Didn’t see Loy fall, but saw her head disappear after Cirignano left her.

We break for the day.

ADA wants to cross Worthington about the criminal complaint she filed against Loy months and months after the incident. Wants to show bias. The defense doesn’t object.

Defense finds justification an important part of his defense. Wants the judge to give the jury a special instruction on it.

The judge says he’s probably going to give the model excuse on assault & battery, which says you can’t touch someone without “right or excuse.” Doesn’t know if he’ll say more. No self-defense, defense of another, or property defense seems to be involved in this case.

Cirignano will take the stand tomorrow, along with a few other defense witnesses. I have no idea how juries think, and from looking at this jury I don’t notice any body language that would help me read their minds.

T&G’s Dianne Williamson does her thing:

At another point, Mr. Gilleran claimed that Mr. Nangle was “very interested” in the story, as though a news account about a protester who bruised her elbow at a rally would catapult a reporter to the editorial pages of The New York Times.

A guy was fixing the courtroom doors this morning, while the lawyers and judge were discussing things inside.

Me, looking at the doors: “Yesterday they were so loud.”

Workman: “Well, they’re not anymore!”

The lawyers were discussing something with the judge about where Sarah Loy held her sign. Will Bay Windows reporter Ethan Jacobs have to take the stand? No.

The defense lawyer is going to try to impeach Loy over some of these details, it seems. Does her testimony of where she held the sign contradict what the Bay Windows article says she said?

There’s also issue with a boston.com (Globe?) article which says she said she was the only gay-marriage-supporter who entered the crowd.

Defense wants to use the transcript of the probable cause hearing. This is related to the civil rights charge. Judge will look into it.

Judge: “How many witnesses do you have?”

ADA: “Four. They should be relatively fast.”

Judge: “Nothing in this has been fast.”

Judge says defense can use testimony from prior hearings to jog her memory, but not substantively.

(Be aware that I’m not a lawyer or law buff, and may very well be using legal terms wrong.)

There are fewer Cirignano supporters there this morning than yesterday, and more people are taking trial notes.

First witness of the day is the return of…

Sarah Loy

Was she the only one to venture into the group? She’s not sure. (This is about that boston.com article.)

She thinks Cirignano’s conduct was hateful, but opposition to gay marriage is not necessarily motivated by hate.

Redirect: Her turning around was quick, and she doesn’t know exactly what happened with hands and shoulders. She doesn’t remember everything she and Sgt Wells said. She was upset at the time.

Recross: From probable cause hearing–”You can’t, y’know, you’re not allowed to go in there.” Defense shows her the transcript.

Redirect: Shows her the transcript. Defense doesn’t want it read aloud, but the judge says OK. “And I thought they meant you can’t go on the step.” So she reads the larger chunk.

Sgt George Wells, Worcester Police Department

This is the bald, shortest policeman involved. Community Impact Unit. He was there to oversee the police detail. Jack Murray and Paul Maki were under him there. Responsibility: “Make sure that nobody caused any disturbances, fighting, anything like that.” What did he do to the two groups? “Just monitor them.”

“I had to separate a group to leave room on the sidewalk for people to pass by.”

He had someone stop beating a drum because they had no sound permit, and the person complied.

Saw Loy when she was on the ground, crying. She told him she wasn’t injured. She was upset and kept asking for Cirignano to be arrested.

Wells approached Cirignano. C said “She got too close, I was concerned, so I pushed her away.”

Cross: “I separated people in the groups. I didn’t separate the groups. I didn’t distinguish…”

He didn’t speak to the detective who wrote the police report. The detective’s report seems to think the cops separated people by political affiliation, but Wells says that’s not what they did.

Didn’t she want to go past him afterwards? Yes. and he blocked her. He won’t say that she wanted to re-enter the main rally.

Did she identify the person who pushed her? No.

Did Cirignano tell Wells he “didn’t push her hard enough to knock her down”? No.

Sidebar.

I think Wells is damn good under cross-examination. He’s shot down several of the defense’s assumptions about how the police were operating that day. Sounds like things were as they were at every demo I’ve been at City Hall, with police doing their best to maintain order without interfering with anything.

Back to the witness. Murray talked to several witnesses. Wells didn’t.

Did Ron “ACLU” Madnick approach him? Doesn’t remember.

RM did approach the group Murray was with while Murray was talking to witnesses.

Some business about where the cops were.

Were there counter-protestors on the stairs? No. The officers did move somebody off the stairs.

Redirect: How did he end up talking to Cirignano? Somebody in the crowd pointed him out.

John “Jack” Murray, Worcester police officer

Taller policeman, with a shaved head. (These details are just so people looking at the Indymedia photos can figure out who these guys are.)

Central Division. Downtown foot beat.

Was working the rally. First saw Loy when she was “laying on the sidewalk.” Spoke to Cirignano at the rally after Cirignano talked to Wells. Cirignano said he saw Loy was backing towards the podium and “lightly pushed her with one hand.”

Spoke to Loy after she got up and talked to Wells.

The Indymedia pix of the event are brought up again.

Cross-examination. Murray took notes of what Cirignano said. Defense shows Murray the notes. Did Cirignano say this about lightly pushing her on the shoulder? In fact didn’t he say he “lightly pushed her on the shoulder once”? Yes.

Didn’t he say it was with one hand? Yes. Did he say that in the other hand he had something? No recollection. During the interview afterwards he did have something in his hand.

Loy stated at the time that she had no injury, and looked uninjured.

(Ron Madnick is sitting next to me shuffling papers, making it hard to hear.) Defense tries to bring something about Ron Madnick into the discussion, but there’s an objection and he drops it.

Detective Daniel Sullivan of the Worcester police

Bigger policeman, with hair.

Part of the follow-up investigations. He was the on-call detective the day after the incident. He interviewed people, took telephone calls, went to City Hall Plaza much later to measure the scene. Has people look at a photo “produced by one of the independent media outlets” (Indymedia, baby) and describe the details of the scene.

Used asphalt patches as reference points.

(I still have no idea what this Kennedy-assasination-like obsession with measurements and crowd positioning is all about.)

The ADA keeps starting questions, then asking for them to be stricken.

Crowd started more than 19′ from the podium.

Cross: From the first step to the podium was ten feet.

Sullivan prepared an incident narrative report. Defense shows him the report. Wants witness to read a section. Objection.

Sidebar. Ethan Jacobs from Bay Windows is back, as is some reporter I don’t know.

Without reading it aloud, Sullivan asked to look at the last sentence of the second paragraph. What were the info sources? “I have no recollection exactly who told me that.” Did he speak to the police who were on the scene? Only Murray, but in general, not about specifics. Murray was the only one he spoke to who was there that day, so he admits the info had to come from him.

Stuart Floyd

Younger guy, software developer, master’s from WPI.

Was a pro-gay-marriage demonstrator. Held a sign at the event. Was standing on the sidewalk listening to the main rally’s speakers.

Was on the opposite side of the semi-circle and saw Loy breach the circle. She walked to the center bottom stair, then stepped down. He was able to read her sign, so she was facing the audience.

He thinks she was there less than a minute. Her sign was at chest level. Saw a man come to her from near the podium and put his hands on her. Recalls hands reaching out, and touching her shoulder/upper back. Some struggle between the lawyers to get him to state exactly where she was touched.

Saw them walking briskly to the audience and she fell. He was behind her, directing her motion.

When she fell he was focused on Loy, and didn’t notice what Cirignano did.

Witness leaves box and he and the prosecutor reenact the positioning. (I wish Sarah Loy and the defense lawyer had done this, because he was making all these physically-impossible assumptions about arm positioning and nobody called him on it.)

Cross-examination. They establish where he was on the diagram. Can he see himself in photos? No, people are in the way.

Police told him that as long as he stayed below the steps, it was fine. He was within the north arm of the crowd.

Did Cirignano have anything in his hands? Not that the witness can recall.

Defense tries over and over to misunderstand his description of the movements. Judge has him leave the witness box and point to things on the diagram.

Did he see Loy fall? No.

Lots of business about exactly what he saw.

(One observer, who’s been to many more trials than I, thought this guy was an atrocious witness. I didn’t feel so strongly.)

The government rests its case.

The defense makes a motion about something, and we take a break.

After the break, there is a motion about the constitutional rights in regard to a permit. People who enter a permitted demo with a contrary message aren’t exercising a right. So Loy didn’t have a free speech right in that area.

The defense wants all the charges dismissed.

ADA cites the Hurley case. Can you “self-help” to maintain your permit area?

Judge separates out the two charges. According to case law, if you have a permitted rally, you have a right to exclude the opposing message. “It seems from case law that the appropriate response is that the police remove the opposing person.”

Judge thinks that case law means police can remove an opposing message.

Judge isn’t convinced she had a right to hold her sign in that area.

The civil rights charge is dismissed.

Defense wants to show a video of part of the rally, but the prosecution says that now that there’s no civil rights charge, what’s the point? They’ll work this out over lunch.

Defense calls its first witness of the day…

John Murray

He’s back. Shows him incident narrative report. Murray confirms he spoke to Sullivan. Has him silently read a paragraph. He doesn’t remember telling Sullivan about this specific bit.

Clarifies that they were trying to open the sidewalk, not divide people politically. If there was one big group, and they all stayed to one side of the sidewalk, that would be OK.

(I think this guy is a personable witness.)

Lauren McCarthy

This girl is wearing her school uniform. She was at the rally, saw Loy come toward her, trip over McCarthy’s foot, and fall.

McCarthy is 5′9″, size 11 shoe.

Went to the rally with her mom, and arrived before it started.

Can she be seen ion photos? Yes. She is the one in purple, and her mom is in the red jacket.

Loy zig-zagged toward her, turned, her mom pushed McCarthy out of the way, but her foot remained and Loy tripped over her left foot.

Didn’t see anyone pushing her.

After Loy fell, Loy came up and looked around, then went back down and started chanting “This is what hatred is.”

Loy came towards the crowd facing them, and only turned at the last second, took a step, and tripped.

Cross examination. Establish that she’s the middle child. She was standing three-people deep into the crowd.

Nicole Alarie

Another girl wearing her school uniform. She went to the rally with her father and history teacher.

She leaves the stand to point out where she was on the diagram. My previous assumption, that the defense lawyer was so bad at positioning people on the diagram because he was trying to confuse the witnesses, seems to be wrong. This guy is just bad at expressing spatial position verbally.

Saw Cirignano escorting her to the edge of the crowd. He was touching her with his right arm against her left arm, between the elbow and shoulder. His left hand must have been at his side, because NA couldn’t see it. He was a pace away when she fell, moving away from the crowd.

She didn’t hear Loy say anything.

Cross: Establishes her age and position at the rally. She was at the outer edge of the group. Her father and history teacher were in another area.

Jack Hartzman

Photographer from Maryland who specializes in corporate events. Defines the role of an advance man/VIP liason as a liason between clients and VIP. Also escorts the VIP around, connects them with people, etc. Hartzman has worked with Cirignano at events for 7 years. Has discussed Cirignano’s work with others in the field. It’s sensitive work. You have to be level-headed, quick thinking, poised, good people skills. “He’s the best that I work with.” Also: “These are multi-million dollar companies that we both work for.”

Cirignano is level-headed, not aggressive.

Cross: Have you seen people act out of character? Yes.

Were you in Worcester for this rally? No.

Henry Chajet

Attorney for law firm in DC. Partner in Patton Boggs. OSH and enviro law work. Walks with a limp. (I just mention these details for people who were there for part of the trial, and saw these guys without knowing who they were.)

Met Cirignano in the early 80s when LC was a regulator at Dept of Labor. (I think.) Friends since.

“I’m a Jewish liberal guy.” A Reform Jew. Does not agree with Cirignano on social issues.

Cirignano has a reputaion for being peaceful.

Cross: Is Cirignano a lawyer? Yes. And you’re a lawyer? Yes.

Sidebar.

Establish his age. Have you seen or heard of people acting out of character? Yes. Doesn’t generally think they do.

ADA is kinda disorganized.

Yes, he’s heard of people acting out of character. Doesn’t believe Cirignano would act out of character. (ADA doesn’t point out that the whole point of “acting out of character” is that someone does what you wouldn’t believe they would do.)

Was he in Worcester for the rally? No.

Early lunch break. Defense wants to show video and call another character witness, then 4-5 more witnesses.

Correction: Maki’s name was misspelled in the original.

The T&G lawyer again tries to get Nangle to not have to testify.

Christopher Robarge

Another witness for the prosecution. 25 year old Worcesterite and counter-demonstrator. Was at the back of the main demonstration.

Saw someone moving fast through the crowd & then fall. Went to help her. (He was a certified EMT-B in Connecticut, and worked for volunteer ambulance services.)

“She was on the ground, she was upset, she was crying.”

“I did see hands on her shoulders.”

Cross-examination. Defense starts drawing on a map of City Hall Plaza with a pen, but nobody can read it, so they get him a marker.

More about the buffer zone. “In my recollection I did not cross the buffer at all.”

Defense tries to determine how many people and signs were in the way of his vision. Witness points out that many of the signs were on poles and so they weren’t blocking anything.

Looks at post-fall photo of her: “I do not see any injury on her head. However this is a picture of the front of her head.”

He’s done. After another sidebar with the T&G lawyer…

Telegram & Gazette reporter Richard Nangle

Richard Nangle, considered by some to be the best journalist on the T&G staff, takes the stand. He was at the event—here’s his article.

He was at the rally from the beginning.

Rough quote: “What I saw was, someone approach a person who was pushed, push her. She hit the ground. Her head hit the ground. He ran to the podium. She was on the ground crying.”

Cross-examination. Defense points out that Nangle isn’t visible in any of the crowd photos, and suggests that he was other than where he says he was. Nangle denies it.

“You say you saw Mr. Cirignano push her.” “Yeah.” “You say that you saw her head hit the ground.” “Yes.”

Defense suggests that it was in Mr. Nangle’s interest to “promote” the story. Nangle: “No, it could very well have been to my disadvantage.”

Sarah Loy, who was pushed

Sarah went to the rally, helped hold the ACLU banner (she’s an active member). Stopped holding the banner so she could hold a sign.

“I wanted the crowd to see the message on my sign.”

Went into the empty space in the middle of the main rally and held the sign up to her chest. Was on a step for a few seconds. Women in the crowd were yelling, “You can’t stand there.” She stepped down to crowd level, still holding the sign, and nobody said anything.

After a few more seconds, she felt a firm grip on her shoulders, she turned to see Cirignano, who was within arm’s reach. His hands were on her shoulders, and he told her to leave in an “angry” voice while pushing her “back towards the crowd.” She was pushed backwards 5-6 feet and fell. She hit the ground holding her sign. Cirignano was gone. People were standing around her holding green anti-gay-marriage signs.

After a few seconds, Rev. Payson came over and helped her up. “Some lady” got police to come over. She said several times to police that she wanted to press charges.

Going back in time: she felt scared when she was grabbed. People asked if she was hurt and she told police and others she was OK.

She remained at the rally till the end. Later she noticed she was bruised on the elbow and shoulder. A couple days later she went to the police station and they photographed the now-yellowing bruise.

Cross-examination. Spends a lot of time trying to clarify/confuse the issue of how Cirignano’s hands were on her shoulders both before and after she turned.

Defense says Cirignano had a clipboard in one hand the whole incident, and pushed her lower back with his arm, and then she tripped on the foot of a girl in a purple jacket.

Lots of questioning, and she gets annoyed.

Defense asks if police Sgt. Wells had to prevent her from returning to the main rally, and she says he didn’t. He told her to stay back, but she says this wasn’t because she was planning to return to the main rally. Note: The defense will probably show a videotape in which Wells tells her to stay back and she does say she wants to return to the rally. Uh oh.

Did she discuss her plan to intrude on the other rally with her husband or Ron Madnick? No.

We break for the day, and Loy will return in the morning for more questions. The defense tells the judge he may very well recall Nangle to clarify inconsistencies between his testimony and his reporting.

Man, this defense lawyer has found small inconsistencies (or what he believes to be inconsistencies) in most of the testimony so far. So far the prosecutor hasn’t shown that he has those kind of chops, and I bet some of the defense witnesses will come off as pretty credible. Remind me never to get called as a witness in a trial with good lawyers.

Ex-WoMag reporter Noah Schaffer is present in the courtroom. He’ll be writing an article about the Courthouse for Boston Lawyer’s Weekly.

During the morning break, several Cirignano supporters arrived. One predicted that Cirignano’s opponents would “flood” the courtroom on Friday. This doesn’t seem likely.

Only 7 of the 8 jurors returned today. Remember the juror who approached the bench as the jurors were leaving yesterday? He’s gone.

Opening statements

The prosecution’s statement is quick. The defense’s is longer and more impassioned. He says Cirignano has been trained as an “advance man” to push people in the lower back with his forearm, and that’s what happened with Sarah Loy. “Yes he did touch her. But there was an excuse and justification.”

More than one observer pointed out that the defense lawyer seems much better at this than the prosecutor.

Mass Family Institute President Kristian Mineau

He’s a witness for the defense, but since the trial schedule changed at the last minute, and he’s here from out of town, he went first.

They had a permit. He’s known Cirignano for 3.5 years. Saw Cirignano move Loy towards the crowd. Says Cirignano is a “very peaceful individual.”

Cross-examination. Asked about his sense of loyalty, and his strong shared views with Cirignano. Asked if he was really paying attention. “This was all in a matter of seconds?” “That’s right.” “She didn’t make any threatening gestures to you?” “No.”

The prosecution brings out some photos of the City Hall plaza, and there’s some business with a photo of the plaza marked out with orange cones and measuring tape. Is he going to claim this witness is bad at estimating distances?

Says that while the “rally” (the anti-gay-marriage demonstration) was assembling, some opponents came into the area, were asked to leave, didn’t leave, and the police shooed them away. Mineau says he himself asked a cop to do this, and the cop did it.

When did Mineau find out about the incident? The next day.

One of Kevin Ksen’s Indymedia pix is brought out to establish Cirignano’s clothing that day.

Break: nice chat with the defendant

The courthouse is brand spanking new, and they don’t have paper towel dispensers in the bathrooms, just hot air blowers. These are inadequate, and while wiping our moist hands on our pants Cirignano struck up a conversation with me. He asked if my tau cross meant I was a Franciscan, and I told him about how my mom bought it for me. (I was also carrying a copy of Mauriac’s Life of Jesus, and was probably the most conspicuously Christian person in the courtroom.) I said I was there as a supporter of Sarah Loy, that I’m glad he has so many people to give him emotional support during the trial, and wished him luck. He said it would be “interesting.”

Donna Terestre, counter-demonstrator

(Note that there may be various spelling errors, etc in this account. Please contact me to confirm any details you want to take from these notes, if it’s for an important purpose.)

Terestre was there, went to the area of the main rally to counter-protest, was asked by Larry Cirignano and someone else to leave, didn’t leave, was asked to talk to the police, and they told her to go to the counter-protestor area.

Says she saw Cirignano with Loy, and he “took her shoulders.” She shows on a crowd photo that she was just to the back of the main demonstration when this happened. She also suggests Loy was farther from the podium than Mineau thought.

Cross-examination. Says that she was standing in the crowd of demonstrators, and the police didn’t move her back.

Rev. Aaron Payson, who saw it all

A UU minister who was there without a sign, to support gay marriage.

“I actually observed a woman being forced backwards through the crowd and pushed to the ground.”

“I observed him push her at which point she fell to the ground.”

He was one of the ones who pointed Cirignano out to the police after the incident.

Cross-examination. Tries to poke holes in his location and his statement to police. Was he “directly behind” her? He’s using the phrase “pushed to the ground” over and over.

Suggests the police established a formal buffer zone between the groups “after this incident.”

The defense seems uncharacteristically unsure of how to proceed. He tries to get into an argument with Payson about how the police separated the two groups. Defense reads a sentence from a Bay Windows article paraphrasing what Payson said, and Payson contradicts this. After a sidebar, the defense drops this issue. I speculate that the judge said something like, “He says the reporter’s summary is wrong, then you’re going to have the reporter come up here, he’ll admit his summary was wrong, and so who cares?”

We finish with an unbelievable amount of back and forth trying to locate Payson in various photos of the event and trying to establish what the police may or may not have said to him about a buffer zone.

Then: lunch.

Update: The spelling of Kristian Mineau’s name has been corrected.