On 27 Apr 2001 11:14:53 GMT, rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote: For once I agree with the RPE coverage and it shows more balance than the case has usually received. Henson was accused of intending to cause fear and terror and to threaten and intimidate. The DA was allowed to make inflammatory comparisons of Keith Henson to the Columbine killers and the Unabomber, despite being twice openly admonished by Judge Wallerstein. He was allowed to make any scandalous allegation about Henson's intent imaginable. Henson was, however, refused any opportunity to explain his actual intent, which was a core issue in the case. This hamstringing of the defense could only lead to prejudice against him. I have heard that jurors afterward commented that they were perplexed by why Henson did not present any defense, but his defense was his intent and the context of the issue. The jurors did not see Henson's actual posts, they saw heavily redacted and altered documents which essentially amounted to forgeries. Even a Hubbard quote was presented as if Henson wrote it, and of course he couldn't discuss it. To do so he would have had to mention a "religious leader" which was out of the question, and forbidden by the court. Additionally, the judge gave nonstandard jury instructions. Rather than use the standard jury instructions normally used, he made up something of his own. I do not know enough about criminal procedure and jury instructions, or even the exact instructions involved, in order to render an intelligent decision as to whether that is itself appealable. There are of course numerous grounds for appeal in all this. If you look up case law on 422.6, most convictions on this statute involve outright, explicit and immediate threats of death or physical injury, almost universally by a person in the direct vicinity of the victim, and often brandishing a gun or other weapon while making the threat. The appellate record is full of cases of convictions for threatening, in-your-face, intimidating conduct being overturned. There is not a single other example of anyone convicted of a case even remotely comparable to this.