2009 Competition Information/Registration   |  County Coordinators   |  Important Dates   |  Case Brief   |  Rules / Rules Changes   |  Errata   |  Forms / Download    |  Courtroom Artist   |  Courtroom Journalist   |  2009 Competition Results   |  Previous Competition Results   |  Volunteers   |   CRF Youth Site   |  Join CRF Alumni   |  Message Board

CASE BRIEF
PEOPLE v. LANE

People v. Lane is the trial of Leslie Lane, a resident of the town of Woodville. A spiritual movement called the New Believers has bought land and settled in Woodville. Lane is charged with arson and with incitement of others to riot, specifically to burn or destroy New Believers’ property.

The prosecution alleges that Leslie was the charismatic leader of an increasingly radical group called the Concerned Woodville Citizens (CWC) that opposed the presence of the New Believers in Woodville. The prosecution further states that Leslie staged an anti-New Believer rally in which Leslie performed a violent rap song called “Burn ’Em Out” and then ignited an effigy of a New Believer on stage. The prosecution alleges that Leslie’s performance was an incitement to riot. A short time after the performance, a large fire broke out on the New Believers’ property, where Leslie was arrested. The prosecution alleges that the fire resulted from an act of arson committed by Leslie.

The defense alleges that Leslie had no part in either incitement or arson. The defense argues that Leslie had been the victim of physical mistreatment by New Believers, who acted on the orders of H.H. Hingle, their leader. The defense further argues that Leslie had returned to the New Believers’ property merely to warn them about possible overreaction by an overzealous group of Leslie’s fans at the rally. The defense argues that the fire could have resulted from causes other than arson. In any case, Leslie did not cause the fire.

The pretrial issue involves the First Amendment freedom of speech and expression relating to Leslie’s performance at the rally. The defense argues that the speech, song, and lighting of the fire did not present a clear, present, and immediate danger to outweigh the right to free speech. As a matter of law, the incitement to riot statute cannot be applied to Leslie’s conduct at the rally and must be dropped.

The prosecution argues that Leslie’s song and actions presented a clear, present, and immediate danger to the community of Woodville, outweighing Leslie’s right to free speech. The prosecution argues that the charge of incitement to riot should not be dropped, and the trier of fact (trial court) should be able to determine whether Leslie is guilty as charged.