Antonio Buehler Found Not Guilty!

Antonio Buehler was found Not Guilty on the charge of Disobeying a Lawful Order last evening, after six hours of deliberation by the jury.

During closing arguments, Millie Thompson, Buehler’s defense lawyer, argued that Buehler did not have to obey Oborski’s orders to put his hands behind his back because Oborski’s orders were illegal. They were illegal because the detention, assault and arrest of Norma Pizana were illegal, and because the detention and assault on Buehler in advance of his arrest were also illegal. She implored the jury to review the videos and audio if need be, to read carefully the jury charge, and to stand by their convictions and to not be intimidated by the Austin Police Department that had upwards of a dozen police officers in the court during the trial. She also encouraged them to have the courage to stand up for others the way that so many stood up on New Year’s Day, 2012. Norma Pizana stood up for the rights of her driver. Buehler stood up for Pizana. Numerous witnesses then came forward to stand up for Buehler, including a witness who testified that Officer Robert Snider then threatened him with arrest. Finally, Jermaine Hopkins, an Austin Police Officer said that he couldn’t in good conscience allow Buehler’s civil rights to be violated, so he crossed the thin blue line to testify on behalf of the defense.

Thompson had a well prepared defense that included a T-chart that she wrote on a white board that compared the legal orders that were given by the officers versus the illegal orders. The legal orders side was left blank while the illegal orders side had at least a half dozen listed. She also questioned the notion that Buehler was a threat, highlighting that even Pizana who was in extreme distress as she was being assaulted knew that Antonio was holding a camera, not a potential weapon as asserted by City Prosecutor Matthew McCabe; that Buehler never got in the face of Oborski or Snider; and that Buehler never articulated a threat of any sort towards the police, but instead simply asked them why they were assaulting Pizana. As an alternative to him being a threat, she wrote on the other half of the whiteboard that what really bothered the police officers was that he questioned their manhood. He did so, Thompson said, because he was the one who was in control of himself that night; he questioned the cops on their aggressive assault of an unarmed, nonviolent woman; and he spoke to the police officers as if he were a father figure as Snider claimed, as if the cops were naughty little children.

The Prosecution then presented their closing arguments, again falling back on the notion that nothing the police said or did before the order to put hands behind the back mattered, and that Buehler could only be judged based on his decision not to at that point. They also argued that any police officer has the right to handcuff anyone so long as they deem the person a threat – an argument never presented before by Officer Oborski. The Assistant City Prosecutor who tried the case, Matthew McCabe, continued with his ethically questionable antics during closing arguments. He seemingly intentionally misstated the law over and over again, despite objections by the Defense. He also decided to demonstrate how palms forward, arms out to the side, may not be a universal symbol of non-aggression, but instead a very challenging aggressive stance. He threw his arms out to the side, threw his his chest forward, and stepped toward the jury numerous times demonstrating how Buehler’s efforts to deescalate a situation with a police officer who had assaulted him might actually be a threatening gesture. The move likely backfired, as several jurors who had seen videos showing only Oborski advancing toward Buehler, had looks of disgust on their face.

Buehler was elated at the ruling. He said, “Finally, after three years, I no longer have charges hanging over my head from an incident in which I saw two Austin Police Officers violently assault an innocent woman, and in which I was violently assaulted for filming and speaking out about the crimes of Officers Patrick Oborski and Robert Snider. The lengths that the City Attorneys and the Austin Police Department have gone to try to railroad me and permanently stain my record with a crime they know I didn’t commit are despicable. I hope that the people of Austin begin to realize that the police in this city are not here to protect and serve the people of Austin. I also hope that the people of Austin recognize the immense courage of the jury and all the witnesses who were willing to stand up and do the right thing, instead of folding under the threat of retaliation by the Austin Police Department.”

He went on to reiterate points made by his attorney Millie Thompson, “There were so many heroes in this trial. Norma stood up for Ashley. I stood up for Norma. Numerous people stood up for me at that 7-Eleven both that night and in the aftermath of my arrest. And during the trial a police officer stood up for me by crossing the thin blue line. And now five jurors stood up for justice in the face of lies and intimidation from the city prosecutors and police.

Thompson added, “APD delayed trial. APD withheld evidence. And the prosecution tried at every turn to protect APD by obstructing our ability to lay out the facts and law for the jury. The jury, however, saw this case for what it was, and said by their verdict: “Not Guilty.”

Antonio Buehler is an entrepreneur in the education space, a West Point, Stanford and Harvard graduate, and the founder of the police accountability activist group, the Peaceful Streets Project. Buehler currently has a pending Federal Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Austin as well as several Austin Police officers, including Patrick Oborski and Robert Snider.

Antonio Buehler Case to Enter into Fourth Day; Questions About Conduct of the Prosecutor Arise

Those who showed up for the Class C Misdemeanor trial against Antonio Buehler on Monday were expecting to hear closing arguments and receive a jury verdict before lunch, but they were surprised to find that the case would not end by lunch. A juror walked in about an hour before the trial was expected to resume and asked the Judge to be excused from duty. The Defense and the Prosecution were both willing to allow the juror to leave for personal reasons; however, the subsequent move for a mistrial by City Prosecutor Matthew McCabe left many scratching their heads as to why the City of Austin was so eager to prevent a jury from making a decision in what has now become a four-day trial (over a seven day period).

Buehler’s defense lawyer Millie Thompson responded by moving to allow five jurors to deliberate in order to prevent forcing multiple witnesses from out of town to attend another trial, and to save the taxpayers the expense of another three- to four-day trial over a Class C Misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a $500 fine.

Spectators who have been watching the jury trial keep questioning the motives and tactics of McCabe and the City Prosecutor’s Office. While Buehler has Thompson to defend him, the City has had six to eight members of the Prosecutor’s Office assisting McCabe throughout the trial. In addition to being filled with City prosecutors, the courtroom has also been filled with Austin Police Department officers. Throughout the trial, there have been at least six police officers in uniform and in plain clothes passing time in the gallery. One of the spectators has been Assistant Police Chief Jason Dusterhoft. In his previous role as the Commander of Highway Enforcement, Dusterhoft oversaw both Officer Patrick Oborski, who Buehler alleges illegally assaulted and illegally arrested him on New Year’s Day, 2012, and Sergeant Adam Johnson, who Buehler alleges illegally arrested him on September 21, 2012. Both Oborski and Johnson are being sued by Buehler.

McCabe’s antics during the trial have been as unnerving for some as has the show of force by the Austin Police Department. In addition to trying to shame Norma Pizana, the woman who was initially assaulted by Officers Robert Snider and Patrick Oborski, he often distracted witnesses and jurors with countless huffs, puffs and sarcastic laughs. At one point, while Buehler was explaining how the action that Snider and Oborski took against Pizana was a recognized torture move, McCabe began to laugh, and was rebuked by Buehler for making light of torture. McCabe has also consistently misstated the law regarding reasonable suspicion, probable cause and Terry stops, and he has allowed his witnesses to do the same. Despite frequent objections by Thompson, McCabe has continued to push forward in the apparent hopes of convincing the jury that the officers were acting under circumstances that they had never before alleged or testified to.

Additionally, spectators and legal observers were dumbfounded when they heard that prosecutors had withheld discovery from the defendant. The defense did not receive the dash cam videos until 2 years and nine months after the initial arrest! Additionally, the prosecution never acknowledged that they had the 7-Eleven surveillance video until they realized the defense had acquired it through other channels.

Buehler said he was concerned about his right to a fair trial. “We came into this trial hoping that the truth would win out. Unfortunately, it seems that the Prosecution’s bully tactics and misconduct have gone far beyond just misleading the jury about the events of New Year’s 2012, it has now encroached upon prosecutorial misconduct as they are deliberately misleading the jury on what the law states.”

Buehler’s attorney Millie Thompson had more to say. “The City’s conduct regarding Antonio Buehler is almost like a law school exam: ‘How many Constitutional Law violations can you spot?’

“First, his First Amendment rights were violated by APD when they attacked him for asking questions and taking pictures. Then, APD officers illegally detained and assaulted him in retaliation for that First Amendment protected speech. Third, they let felony harassment of a public servant charges stay pending for more than a year when – we now know – the officer didn’t think there was any intentional conduct. By leaving the charges pending without informing his chain of command that he didn’t believe the alleged spit was intentional, he violated Mr. Buehler’s rights to Due Process. Fourth, the City put this Class C ticket on the back-burner for 2 years and 10.5 months before taking it trial – a violation of the Speedy Trial Clause.

“And, now, the piece de resistance: The City wants to violate the Double Jeopardy Clause by asking for a mistrial so they can have a do-over.

“I was born in Austin and went to Reagan High School. My parents were born here; my grandparents were born here. My great grandfather Kenneth Threadgill, who founded Threadgills, was born here. Austinites expect more from their local government than what they’ve seen in this case.”

Day four of the Buehler trial begins at 8:30 a.m., on Wednesday, October 28th at Courtroom #2A of the Austin Municipal Courthouse.

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW OPPOSING THE STATE’S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL: Opposition to Mistrial

Trial for the Controversial New Year’s Day Arrest of Antonio Buehler Concludes Monday, October 27th at Austin Municipal Court

Tomorrow morning, Monday, October 27th, at the Austin Municipal Courthouse, what has been perhaps the most exciting and tense Class C Misdemeanor trial in recent Austin history will finally come to a close.

On Friday, in a surprise move that would extend the trial into a third day, Austin City Prosecutor Matthew McCabe recalled Officer Robert Snider and called APD Academy Instructor Raul Carrillo to testify. Calling Snider back to the stand was a curious move, considering that Snider did not endear himself to the jury for the way he described his decision to pull Norma Pizana out of the passenger seat of a car for texting on her phone, and for his admission that he threatened to arrest a pedestrian bystander who observed the arrests of Buehler, Pizana and Hill. Snider ended up leaving the witness stand without answering a single question.

Officer Carrillo, the prosecution’s last minute star witness was perhaps an even bigger mistake. Without being qualified as an expert, Carrillo could not testify to the specifics of Buehler’s New Year’s Day arrest, so instead he was forced to answer hypothetical scenarios. McCabe tried to lead Carrillo down a path that would suggest that the actions of Officers Patrick Oborski and Robert Snider were justified. Buehler’s attorney Millie Thompson, meanwhile, walked Carrillo down a hypothetical path that mirrored the New Year’s Day arrest, leading Carrillo to acknowledge that Oborski should not have approached Buehler, should have probably backed up when he realized he was too close to Buehler, and that Oborski’s actions were tantamount to assault.

Earlier in the day the, Austin Police Officer Jermaine Hopkins crossed the “thin blue line” to testify on behalf of the defense. When asked why he chose to step forward, Hopkins said that he couldn’t in good conscience allow the Austin Police Department to trample upon Mr. Buehler’s civil rights. Hopkins helped correct what the Defense believed were misstatements by the Prosecutor, Oborski, and Snider about the law regarding probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Thompson later filed a motion with the judge to properly instruct the jury on the law before deliberations.

Additionally, Antonio Buehler had his opportunity to testify before the Defense rested their case. Buehler got choked up early on, describing how Pizana’s cried, “Help me please!” as Oborski and Snider ratcheted her arms up behind her back, but he recovered quickly to describe in detail everything that followed. Buehler continually referenced the videos as he explained how Oborski approached him and begin to shove and push him without cause, well before there was any claim of Oborski being spit on. Buehler also admitted to ignoring Oborski’s instructions to put his hands behind his back, as he deemed such instructions to be unlawful given what he believed were previous illegal acts by both Oborski and Snider. While Buehler’s testimony was expected to take 2-3 hours, McCabe apparently did not seem eager to question Buehler and quickly passed the witness.

“I was really disappointed that McCabe didn’t ask me more questions,” Buehler said. “He continued, “Every time McCabe asked me a question, we were able to highlight how malicious and dishonest their case is, which explains why he was so eager to get me off the stand. I hope the jury saw what was evident to everyone else in the courtroom—that unlike the prosecution, we didn’t have to try to keep our lies straight—all we had to do was speak the truth. I hope that the people of Austin are the next ones to recognize the incredibly disturbing lengths that the Austin Police Department and the City Prosecutors have taken to try to cover up the crimes of two corrupt cops.”

Buehler’s attorney Millie Thompson said, “The police arrested an innocent man. By doing so, they guaranteed a long and expensive court battle. We had a three day trial. Three police officers testified for the State. Six witnesses testified for the defense. Six Austinite jurors. The lost man-hours and State’s resources that went into prosecuting this frivolous Class C Misdemeanor with a maximum $500 fine are extraordinary – all to protect APD’s unconstitutional conduct. Do Austin tax payers want their money spent this way? ”

Antonio Buehler is an entrepreneur in the education space, a West Point, Stanford and Harvard graduate, and the founder of the police accountability activist group, the Peaceful Streets Project. Buehler currently has a pending Federal Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Austin as well as several Austin Police officers, including Patrick Oborski and Robert Snider.