University of Virginia Library

Round Two

The second round in the continuing
courtroom bout between Steve Squire and the
Commonwealth of Virginia was won by the
Commonwealth Friday in Corporation Court.
While this trial was perhaps not quite as
overtly blatant a mockery of judicial
procedure as the first pairing off last May in
Municipal Court, it did raise several questions
and eyebrows.

To begin with, neither side is taking this
case at its face value, and, as a result, it has
been blown ludicrously out of proportion to
its comparative significance. Disorderly
conduct is, after all, only a misdemeanor.
Why then, it would seem logical to ask, would
the Commonwealth trot out its top
heavyweight, John Camblos, to fight for a
featherweight crown? Clearly, Mr. Camblos is
hoping to win not just the case, but a
precedent.

Mr. Camblos, however, is a man of many
minds, and minds are indeed subject to
change. Maybe this psychological
phenomenon is the only explanation we are
entitled to as to why Mr. Camblos called for a
"light" punishment to be imposed on Mr.
Squire in May, and then asked the jury for a
"severe" punishment Friday. The jury
listened – and imposed a fine of $600 and
four months in jail on the defendant, which,
by any rational standards, seems unduly harsh
for a minor offense of this nature.

None of this is to pass judgment on Mr.
Squire or his sparring partner, Alan Williams,
although it is clear to us that both have
inflated interpretations concerning how far
their rights extend. Mr. Williams proved this
by resorting to physical means to demonstrate
his authority in a circumstance where there
was no imminent danger to anybody. Mr.
Squire proved this by stating that had he been
holding up a ten by thirty foot sign,
completely blocking the natural view of those
he was facing, he would still have been within
his rights.

It is a touchy case with a large gray area,
and there is something to be said for the
arguments of both sides. But the problem
which neither side seems to want to accept is
that there are conflicting bases for
determining at what absolute point one's right
to freedom of expression gives way to an
official's obligation to control officially
sponsored functions.

The balancing of the rights of the accused
and the rights of the state in this case, as well
as the determination of just what does
constitute a disturbance of the peace, are
questions the court must answer, to be sure.
But the only way for justice to be done is
through a fair trial, based strictly on the facts
of the instant case (not on setting examples).
Judging by the stated desire of Mr. Camblos
to exaggerate the importance of the case, and
especially judging by the cryptic explanations
of the deliberations by a juror (see
continuation of news story on p. 4), it is quite
clear that this case is still to receive an
intelligent and impartial trial.

If the Commonwealth of Virginia, after
lying the defense's hands by rejecting all
preliminary motions, can enter the ring with
its contender wearing brass knuckles supphed
by both judge and jury, it is really no contest.