![]() | The Cavalier daily Monday, October 16, 1972 | ![]() |
Jury Sentences Squire
the defendant to move from
the place where he was and the
right to use such reasonable
means to see that he did
move." He defined disorderly
conduct as "such behavior as
disturbs public peace and good
order."
In his summation Mr.
Camblos attacked Mr.
Squire's contention that even
had his sign been 10 feet by 30
feet he still would have the
right to display it as he did. Mr.
Camblos in summation
contended that "no one should
be subjected to someone who
feels his rights are more
powerful than theirs."
Mr. Lowe, in his
summation, argued that Mr.
Williams had not acted
"reasonably" in removing Mr.
Squire and therefore had
exceeded the authority of his
position, as defined by the
court.
He further argued that Mr.
Squire had no "criminal
intent" in refusing to leave and
was merely standing up for
what he believed were his
rights.
The jury, composed of three
men and two women,
deliberated a little over an hour
before returning its verdict.
Asked afterward what had
led the jury to convict Mr.
Squire, a male juror told the
press, "Well, you know how
women is. They got kids 'n
all."
When questioned as to the
jury's deliberations concerning
its recommended sentence of
four months in jail and a fine
of $600, the juror commented
that they did not want to
impose too harsh a sentence
because "it was a 50-50
proposition.
"I don't think he was any
more wrong than the other
guy. I mean, grabbing him by
the throat and everything....
You know, live and let live –
see what I mean," he added.
After the trial, Mr. Lowe
stated his intention to appeal
the case to the state Supreme
Court.
![]() | The Cavalier daily Monday, October 16, 1972 | ![]() |