Warriors in defense of the First Amendment – moms Shannon Llewellyn and Catherine Vitale – endured ongoing hearings in a West Roxbury court following their wrongful arrest over two years ago for disturbing the peace at a protest in front of Mayor Michelle Wu’s Roslindale home. The charges culminated in a jury trial July 17-18, resulting in a not guilty verdict.
A narrowly written ordinance, voted 9 to 4 by the Boston City Council in March 2022, was intended to shield Mayor Wu from ongoing public protests for her actions taken during the pandemic. Mandated COVID vaccines for first responders and city workers, as well as ongoing masking of school children, were the women’s main grievances. Boston’s existing noise ordinance restricts excessive noise between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The new ordinance limits protesters to picket outside an individual home in a neighborhood between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. only.
A group of four moms knew their right to assemble and protest was protected by the Constitution, and they continued to show up after 7 a.m. to protest until Mayor Wu left for City Hall around 8 a.m. Clearly the aim of the new ordinance was to restrict neighborhood protests until after Mayor Wu left for work. (4/2023, https://tinyurl.com/2wwdxpx9)
The 2022 civil ordinance is punishable by fines. But rather than receiving a fine on June 29, 2022, the women were arrested and criminally charged with disturbing the peace. They were handcuffed and taken in, fingerprinted and photographed. Two of the women were shackled. “We were four women [in] dresses, piled into a small cell, with multiple men bullying and shouting at us,” Llewellyn said. She and Vitale objected to being shackled, resulting in the supervisor instructing the officers to remove shackles already on the two other women.
It seems pretty clear the harassment of the defendants following their arrests was intentional by the court, requiring them to continue to appear for hearings and refusing to drop the unlawful charges. It became obvious a couple of months later when charges were dropped for the two other women arrested, that Llewellyn and Vitale were being singled out. But it wouldn’t be until nearly a year later they would understand why. Both Llewellyn and Vitale appeared on Mayor Wu’s infamous “Enemies List,” leaked to the public in June 2023. The leak was a result of a FOIA request related to a lawsuit filed after the unjust firing of a police officer. (8/4/2023, https://tinyurl.com/majrtz85) Both the police officer, Shana Cottone, as well as Llewellyn and Vitale, were known opponents of Mayor Wu’s COVID mandates.
It was Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden who decided to pursue criminal charges. In total, Llewellyn and Vitale were scheduled for 20 hearings over 25 months. First justice of the West Roxbury Division, Boston Municipal Court, Hon. Kathleen Coffey, allowed the case to go this far and made the decision to bring it to trial. Jury selection was so challenging it went into a second day. Jurors were being disqualified due to the general sentiment of strong negative feelings toward Mayor Wu.
Vitale and Llewellyn also believed the jurisdiction of Mayor Wu’s home in Roslindale, in the West Roxbury District, meant their case was biased from the start. “They met, they collaborated, they organized in advance to carry out the arrests,” Llewellyn said. She believes the charges against them were an act of corruption, where punishment and fear are used to crush the dissident that goes against the machine. “It’s the state; it’s the courts; it’s the police, arm-in-arm, crushing those who dissent,” said Llewellyn. In this case, Mayor Wu’s political opponents.
It wasn’t the two women’s choice to go to trial, as may often be the case with defendants. “The only way we could have avoided trial would be to plead guilty and accept [the] charges,” Vitale said. The women also felt they had no choice but to defend themselves. “A bar attorney can only go so far to expose corruption within the court and not jeopardize his career,” Llewellyn said. Thus, the two women represented themselves pro se. “Pro se,” meaning in Latin, “in one’s own behalf.”
The harassment on the part of the court continued throughout their trial. Vitale said she felt intimidated and was harassed, unable to get through her opening statement. The judge rushed her, continually cutting her off and excluding every reference to the ordinance. The prosecutor interrupted and called objections throughout her delivery. The women said the trial was riddled with contradictions and hostility and they felt bullied.
I asked Vitale and Llewellyn why they felt the jury sided with them.
“The public saw everyday people being abused by the system,” Llewellyn said. “The more [the judge] tried to exclude our evidence, the more they likely sympathized with us,” Vitale said. Also, the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution provides the right to confront your accuser. But there was no accuser. There is no crime if there is no victim. “We didn’t block streets or traffic. We didn’t vandalize or set fires,” Llewellyn said, “therefore, there was no legitimate reason for a trial.” Llewellyn and Vitale never wavered. They stuck to their principles defending the First Amendment.
The moral of this story is you cannot criminalize a right protected by the Constitution. In this case, the right to assemble, to protest, to air your grievances to your government. At a time when the Constitution of the United States is being trampled upon, these two women prevailed against a compromised justice system. A jury of six in Boston found Llewellyn and Vitale not guilty. Bravo!
(4/2023, www.bostonbroadside.com/mass/wu2/)
(8/2023, www.bostonbroadside.com/mass/enemieslist/)
