William J. Martínez, United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs Eric Verlo, Janet Matzen, and the Fully Informed Jury Association ("FIJA") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this lawsuit to establish that they have a First Amendment right to distribute and discuss literature regarding jury nullification in the plaza outside of Denver's Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse ("Courthouse Plaza" or "Plaza"). (ECF Nos. 1, 13-1.) The Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse is where most criminal proceedings take place for Colorado's Second Judicial District (which is coterminous with the City and County of Denver).
Plaintiffs have sued the City and County of Denver itself and its police chief, Robert C. White, in his official capacity (jointly, "Denver"). Plaintiffs have also sued the Hon. Michael A. Martinez
On the same day Plaintiffs filed their complaint, they also moved for a preliminary
This Court held an evidentiary hearing and heard oral argument on August 21, 2015. Having considered all of the filings, evidence, and arguments submitted to date, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for the reasons explained below.
To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that four equitable factors weigh in their favor: (1) they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) their threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. See Westar Energy, Inc. v. Lake, 552 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.2009); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC, 500 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir.2007). "[B]ecause a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal." Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir.2003).
Plaintiffs' original complaint recounts the story of two non-parties, Mark Iannicelli and Eric Brandt, who were passing out pamphlets on the Courthouse Plaza on July 27, 2015. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 14.) The pamphlets were titled "Fresh Air for Justice" and "Your Jury Rights: True or False?" (Id. ¶ 15; ECF No. 1-3; ECF No. 1-4.) Both pamphlets contain some history of jury nullification and various general statements about the jury's role as envisioned by the Framers. (See generally ECF Nos. 1-3, 1-4.) But the pamphlets also contain certain calls to action which could raise concern. "Fresh Air for Justice," for example, contains the following:
"Fresh Air for Justice" also contains the following, which could be interpreted as encouraging prospective jurors to lie during voir dire:
(Id. at 4.)
The other pamphlet, "Your Jury Rights: True or False?", does not contain language quite as direct as the foregoing, but it does declare, "You cannot be forced to obey a `juror's oath.'" (ECF No. 1-4 at 3.)
Iannicelli was arrested on the Plaza that day, and Brandt was arrested on a warrant a few days later. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 18.) Both were charged with jury tampering: "A person commits jury-tampering if, with intent to influence a juror's vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-609(1). The affidavit supporting Brandt's arrest mentions that he and Iannicelli had been on the Courthouse Plaza at a time that jurors "would be expected to be arriving" for the ongoing death penalty prosecution of Dexter Lewis. (ECF No. 1-2 at 4.)
Plaintiff Eric Verlo "wishes to pass out the same literature on the Lindsey-Flannigan [sic; `Flanigan'] plaza as Eric Brandt and Mark Iannicelli were passing out which caused them to be arrested." (ECF No. 1 ¶ 9.) Plaintiff Janet Matzen wishes to do the same. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff FIJA is
(Id. ¶ 11.)
Two days after filing suit, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to insert allegations regarding a Second Judicial District administrative order recently posted on the Courthouse doors. (ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 2.) The order, designated "CJO 15-1" and dated August 14, 2015, was titled "Chief Judge Order Regarding Expressive Activities at the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse." (ECF No. 24-1.) This order was actually amended on August 21, 2015, hours before the preliminary injunction hearing in this Court, and admitted as Exhibit 1 in that hearing. (See ECF No. 25-1.) The Court will refer to the amended order as the "Plaza Order." In relevant part, it reads as follows:
(Id. at 1-2 (formatting in original).) The Court will refer to the Plaza Order's numbered paragraphs by their number, e.g., "Paragraph 1 of the Plaza Order" (referring to the forms of prohibited expressive activity). In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Plaza Order was "apparently" entered in response to Brandt's and Iannicelli's actions. (ECF No. 13-1 ¶ 2.)
The "attached map" referenced in the Plaza Order is reproduced on the following page:
(Id. at 3.) This map shows an aerial view of the Courthouse. The top of the map is north. The Courthouse itself is the irregularly shaped, white-roofed building occupying the left half of the map. Immediately to the left (west) of the Courthouse is Fox Street. Immediately to the north is Colfax Avenue. Immediately to the right (east) of the Courthouse grounds is Elati Street, which is closed to traffic other than police vehicles as it runs past the Courthouse. Elati bisects a circular area paved in a tan color. Just to the right (east) of Elati, and not depicted in the map, is Denver's Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center ("Detention Center"), which houses pretrial detainees. Thus, the area between the Courthouse and Detention Center is a fairly spacious place suitable for public gatherings.
Immediately to the east and west of the Courthouse are areas that the Second Judicial District highlighted in yellow to indicate where expressive activity is restricted ("Restricted Area"). This matter principally concerns the arc-shaped portion of the
Plaintiffs called as a witness Commander Antonio Lopez of the Denver Police Department. Lopez oversees the Denver Police district that encompasses the Courthouse and the Detention Center. Lopez testified that the Courthouse opened in 2010 or 2011. During that time, he has seen "more protests [in the area between the Courthouse and the Detention Center] than [he can] recall. At one point we were averaging about two or three a week, in that area." On cross-examination, Lopez clarified that most of those protests were nearer to the Detention Center than the Courthouse. Nonetheless, to Lopez's knowledge, the Denver Police Department has never restricted or interfered with any peaceful First Amendment activity taking place between the Courthouse and the Detention Center.
The Second Judicial District called Steven Steadman, who is the Colorado judicial branch's security administrator. Steadman was closely involved in the discussions leading up to the Plaza Order. Steadman testified that, during those discussions, he was unaware of Brandt and Iannicelli or the distribution of jury nullification literature, and that the Plaza Order actually arose from very different concerns.
According to Steadman, discussions began with Chief Judge Martinez in early July 2015 because the Dexter Lewis trial was scheduled to overlap with another death penalty trial in Arapahoe County, i.e., the trial of Aurora theater shooter James Holmes. Steadman and Chief Judge Martinez specifically worried about potentially violent protests that might break out if Lewis (who is black) eventually received the death penalty but Holmes (who is white) did not. Proactively seeking to avoid such a problem, Steadman gave Chief Judge Martinez a copy of an order entered by the Hon. Carlos A. Samour, Jr., who presided over the Holmes trial in Arapahoe County. Judge Samour's order apparently was a model for what the Second Judicial District eventually issued as the Plaza Order.
On cross-examination, Steadman confirmed that the Plaza Order was intended specifically to address the protests that might erupt if Holmes and Lewis were treated differently with respect to the death penalty. Steadman admitted, however, that his office could require several hours' notice between the announcement that the jury had reached a verdict and the actual reading of the verdict, which would permit a police presence to assemble in anticipation of protests. Steadman also admitted that nothing like the Plaza Order had been in place or enforced prior to August 14, 2015, and that passing out jury nullification literature did not present any security risk beyond what the Second Judicial District has tolerated, without incident, since the Courthouse opened.
As mentioned previously, Denver has stipulated with Plaintiffs that it will not enforce any prohibition on distributing jury nullification literature on the Courthouse Plaza. Specifically, Denver has stipulated that
(ECF No. 23 ¶¶ 2, 4.)
Given this stipulation, the Second Judicial District argues that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring this lawsuit because no threat of enforcement is imminent. (ECF No. 24 at 6-8.) See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ("the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" includes, among other things, an "actual or imminent" "invasion of a legally protected interest"); Dias v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1176 (10th Cir. 2009) (to obtain prospective relief, a plaintiff must show a "credible threat of future prosecution"). As stated at the preliminary injunction hearing, however, the Court rejects this contention.
The Second Judicial District's standing argument assumes that the only way an individual could run afoul of the Plaza Order is through Denver's independent enforcement efforts. But Chief Judge Martinez, and perhaps any other judge in the Second Judicial District, could issue a contempt citation for violating the Plaza Order. Cf. Schmidter v. State, 103 So.3d 263, 265-69 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2012) (distributor of FIJA literature convicted of contempt for violating an administrative order similar to the Plaza Order). The violator would then be required to appear before the issuing judge, and if he or she fails to appear, an arrest warrant can issue. See Colo. R. Civ. P. 107(c). Denver may then be obligated to arrest the violator — not on the authority of the Plaza Order, but on the authority of the judge's contempt citation. See id. (requiring the sheriff to carry out the arrest). The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Colorado state law enforcement officers, not subject to Denver's stipulation, could also effect the arrest of such a hypothetical violator.
Thus, the Court finds that Article III standing still exists, and the Court will move on to the elements Plaintiffs must establish to secure a preliminary injunction. To repeat, those elements are: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Westar Energy, 552 F.3d at 1224.
Evaluating the likelihood of success requires evaluating the substantive merit of Plaintiffs' claim that the First Amendment grants them a right to discuss and distribute pamphlets about jury nullification with individuals entering and leaving the Courthouse. To answer this question, the Supreme Court prescribes the following analysis:
See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 797-806, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). The Court will address these inquiries in turn.
The Court "must first decide whether [the speech at issue] is speech protected by the First Amendment, for, if it is not, we need go no further." Id. at 797, 105 S.Ct. 3439. There appears to be no contest on this point. The Second Judicial District has raised no argument that any part of the message conveyed by the pamphlets is unprotected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court deems it conceded for preliminary injunction purposes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the question of whether the First Amendment protects their message.
The Court must next decide whether the Courthouse Plaza — and the Restricted Area specifically — is a public or nonpublic forum:
Id. at 800, 105 S.Ct. 3439(citations and internal quotation marks omitted; alterations incorporated).
The public/nonpublic inquiry presents a unique dilemma in this case. On the one hand, Denver's stipulation with Plaintiffs includes the following: "The Lindsey-Flanigan plaza ... which is located between the Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center and the Lindsey-Flanigan courthouse is a public forum and any content-based regulations must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest...." (ECF No. 23 ¶ 1 (emphasis added).) On the other hand, the Second Judicial District strongly disagrees:
(ECF No. 24 at 8.) Apparently a minor turf war has erupted between Denver and the Second Judicial District over control of the Courthouse grounds.
When asked at the preliminary injunction hearing regarding the "state law" that gives Chief Judge Martinez "responsib[ility] for the oversight of the courthouse and the adjoining grounds," counsel for the Second Judicial District directed the Court to Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-3-108(1). That subsection reads: "The board of county commissioners in each county shall continue to have the responsibility of providing and maintaining adequate courtrooms and other court facilities including janitorial service, except as otherwise provided in this section." Neither this language, nor anything else in § 13-3-108, appears to relate to a chief judge's authority over courthouse policies or courthouse grounds.
Counsel for the Second Judicial District also pointed this Court to State ex rel. Norton v. Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, 897 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1995) ("Mesa County"). In Mesa County, the county commissioners defied an order from the Twenty-First Judicial District's chief judge requiring additional security measures at the county courthouse. See Mesa County, 897 P.2d at 789. The county commissioners further announced their intent to stop providing support of any kind to the Twenty-First Judicial District, arguably in violation of § 13-3-108(1) (quoted above), Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-1-114(2) (requiring county sheriffs to assist the judiciary when the judiciary perceives a "risk of violence in the court"), and Colorado Revised Statutes § 30-11-104(1) (requiring each county to "provide a suitable courthouse"). See id. The county commissioners believed that Colorado's constitutional Taxpayers' Bill of Rights allowed the county to disregard the foregoing statutes because they created an impermissible "subsidy" to the court system. Id. at 789-90. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the county commissioners' position and held that counties' statutory duties toward the court system are not "subsidies" under the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. Id. at 791.
The Mesa County decision highlights the relationship between counties and the state courts that sit within them. It emphasizes county sheriffs' duties to assist judges in preventing "violence in the court." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-114(2). It does not support the Second Judicial District's notion that it controls and can speak for the status of the Courthouse grounds.
Finally, counsel for the Second Judicial District cited this Court to In re Court Facilities for Routt County, 107 P.3d 981 (Colo.App.2004) ("Routt County"). Routt County held that, under certain circumstances, a state judicial district's chief judge has inherent authority to order the board of county commissioners to design and pay for a new courthouse. Id. at 984. Quoting Peña v. District Court, 681 P.2d 953, 956 (Colo.1984), Routt County relied on the notion that "courts necessarily possess certain inherent powers, which ... consist of `all powers reasonably required to enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence, and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective.'" Routt County, 107 P.3d at 984.
First, counsel for the Second Judicial District agrees that Denver owns the Courthouse itself and all of its grounds.
Second, counsel for the Second Judicial District further stated that there was no lease agreement of which he was aware between Denver and the Second Judicial District. Rather, the Second Judicial District occupies the Courthouse "as provided by law."
Third, it is undisputed that the Second Judicial District is not the Courthouse's sole occupant. Denver County Court also sits in the Courthouse. Denver County Court is unique among county courts in Colorado because the Colorado Constitution grants Denver the authority to set the "number, manner of selection, qualifications, term of office, tenure, and removal of [its] judges." Colo. Const. art. VI, § 26. Moreover, a Chief Justice Directive from the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court states that "[t]he chief judge of the Second Judicial District shall not have administrative authority over the Denver County Court." CJD 95-01, Preamble (amended Aug. 17, 2012), available at https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/ Supreme_Court/Directives/95-01amended 8-17-12.pdf. Thus, there are two distinct judicial bodies operating in the Courthouse, and the Second Judicial District apparently cannot speak for both.
For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their contention that Denver controls and speaks for the Courthouse Plaza.
"In [a] quintessential public forum[], the government may not prohibit all communicative activity." Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983); see also id. at 46, 103 S.Ct. 948 (holding that the government may un-designate a designated public forum, but until it does so, "it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum"). The state may, however, "enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which [1] are content-neutral, [2] are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and [3] leave open ample alternative channels of communication." Id. The Court will address each element in turn as it applies to the Plaza Order.
The Plaza Order applies "without regard to the content of any particular message, idea, or form of speech." (ECF No. 25-1 at 1.) On its face, then, it appears content-neutral. Plaintiffs have not argued otherwise.
The Plaza Order itself asserts several interests:
(Id.) However, in response to Plaintiffs' Motion, the Second Judicial District has only defended the Plaza Order on the bases of preserving "the efficient functioning of the court" (e.g., unhindered ingress and egress to the Courthouse) and "maintain[ing] public safety." (ECF No. 24 at 12.)
These are potentially "significant" government interests. Legitimate time-place-manner restrictions in a public forum can be motivated by "objectives [such as] public safety, accommodating competing uses of the easement, controlling the level and times of noise, and similar interests." First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake City Corp., 308 F.3d 1114, 1132 (10th Cir.2002). But the Court finds on this record that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that the Plaza Order is not narrowly tailored to these stated objectives. Paragraph 1 of the Plaza Order bans essentially all expressive activity regardless of whether it would affect "the efficient functioning of the court" or threaten "public safety." Courts look dimly on such "First Amendment Free Zones." See Bd. of Airport Comm'rs of City of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987); First Unitarian, 308 F.3d at 1132.
Moreover, in the Second Judicial District's briefing (see ECF No. 24 at 12) and at the preliminary injunction hearing, it became clear that the sole motivating concern behind the Plaza Order was potentially violent protests that could follow if Dexter Lewis receives the death penalty. Steadman, the Second Judicial District's witness, agreed that other measures could
Given the foregoing finding, inquiry into the alternative channels of communication is unnecessary.
"[T]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1190 (10th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the Second Judicial District offers no response to Plaintiffs' irreparable injury argument. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will be irreparably injured absent a preliminary injunction.
The injury to a plaintiff deprived of his or her First Amendment rights almost always outweighs potential harm to the government if the injunction is granted. See Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1131 (10th Cir.2012); ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149, 1163 (10th Cir.1999). And again, the Second Judicial District offers no response to Plaintiffs' argument that the balance of interests tips in their favor. Accordingly, the Court finds that the balance indeed tips in Plaintiffs' favor, although the Court will issue the narrowest injunction possible so that the Second Judicial District is not unduly restrained in its ability to maintain safety and proper judicial functioning. (See Part III.F, infra.)
Finally, as with irreparable injury and balancing of interests, it is almost always in the public interest to prevent a First Amendment violation. See Awad, 670 F.3d at 1132; Johnson, 194 F.3d at 1163. The Second Judicial District does not argue otherwise. The Court therefore finds that a narrowly drawn injunction would be in the public interest.
The Court will enter a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs. However, the Court will not grant an injunction as broad as Plaintiffs' counsel requested at the preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiffs'
Further, although Plaintiffs apparently seek to strike down the entire Plaza Order as unconstitutional, the Court will limit its injunction only to certain portions of the Plaza Order. As counsel for the Second Judicial District pointed out at the preliminary injunction hearing, the Plaza Order applies both inside and outside the Courthouse, but Plaintiffs have only challenged its restrictions outside the Courthouse. Accordingly, the Court will not disturb the Plaza Order as it operates inside the Courthouse.
In addition, the Court notes the Landscaping and Gravel Area in the East Restricted Area. Although no party discussed the scope of a potential injunction in these specific areas, the Court assumes for present purposes that Denver did not intend its public forum stipulation to authorize Plaintiffs to tramp through the Landscaping or the Gravel Area, both of which are ultimately designed for the Courthouse's security. The Court therefore will not enjoin the operation of the Plaza Order as it applies to the Landscaping and Gravel Area.
The Court also notes that Plaintiffs have specifically alleged their intent to distribute and discuss the two pamphlets attached to their original complaint, "Fresh Air for Justice" (ECF No. 1-3) and "Your Jury Rights: True or False?" (ECF No. 1-4). At the preliminary injunction hearing, counsel for Plaintiffs reemphasized that these two pamphlets form the basis of what they wish to discuss. The Court will therefore limit its injunction to distribution of those specific pamphlets and oral advocacy of the message contained in those pamphlets.
Finally, only Paragraph 1 of the Plaza Order is truly at issue here. Plaintiffs have not challenged the Second Judicial District's authority to prevent obstruction of the entryways (Paragraph 2), to prohibit the erection of structures (Paragraph 3), or to restrict sound amplification equipment (Paragraph 4). Thus, the Court will limit the injunction to Paragraph 1 of the Plaza Order.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
