Thursday, January 05, 2006
Howard reports a washington post story about a case in which Maryland's
indecent exposure statute was too vague to convict a guy of mooning.
I am puzzled though by this bit in the story:
Defense attorneys cited a 1983 case of a woman who was arrested after protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that covered the front of her body.
This would seem to be a reference to Mary Grace, www.justia.us/us/461/171/case.html
but either the paper got it wrong or the defense attorney got it wrong or the Supreme Court opinion just happebned to leave out the bit about her being naked under her sign, which would make the case that much more interesting and memorable.
I'm gonna guess offhand it's a) the paper got it wrong.
Perhaps the alert blogosphere can offer clarification.
indecent exposure statute was too vague to convict a guy of mooning.
I am puzzled though by this bit in the story:
Defense attorneys cited a 1983 case of a woman who was arrested after protesting in front of the U.S. Supreme Court wearing nothing but a cardboard sign that covered the front of her body.
This would seem to be a reference to Mary Grace, www.justia.us/us/461/171/case.html
but either the paper got it wrong or the defense attorney got it wrong or the Supreme Court opinion just happebned to leave out the bit about her being naked under her sign, which would make the case that much more interesting and memorable.
I'm gonna guess offhand it's a) the paper got it wrong.
Perhaps the alert blogosphere can offer clarification.
Comments:
Post a Comment
