“District attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries,” retired judge Sol Wachtler told the New York Daily News in 1985, “that, by and large, they could get them to indict a ham sandwich.”

I’ve yet to see any public comment from Wachtler, now 95 years old, on a grand jury’s August 26 refusal to indict one Sean C. Dunn for THROWING a sandwich (maybe even a ham sandwich) at federal occupation troops in Washington, DC after giving them a well-deserved, if maybe a little alcohol-driven, verbal dressing down.

“Grand jury nullification” seems to be having a moment.  Earlier in August, DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro tried and failed no fewer than three times to convince a grand jury to indict Sydney Lori Reid for “assaulting or impeding federal officers” after an FBI agent scraped his hand on a cement wall as he assaulted her when she tried to get video of ICE thugs abducting an immigrant.

“Jury nullification” usually involves a “petit” jury acquitting a defendant at trial, as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, “in the teeth of both law and facts.”

The jury may unanimously believe that the defendant did some particular thing, and unanimously know that thing is against the law, but also unanimously dismisses the law itself as immoral or badly applied.

The practice pre-dates American jurisprudence, and the constitutional prohibition on “double jeopardy” means that the defendant can’t be re-tried. “Not guilty” is forever.

Well, sort of. Disappointed prosecutors often  find other charges to file, or hand the same facts over to other levels of government for different framing (“he was found not guilty of murder, but now we’re charging him with violating the civil rights of the person he murdered”).

And unfortunately, as noted above, prosecutors can bring the same case before a grand jury (or more than one grand jury) over and over until they finally find enough servile citizens in one place to get the indictment they want … or just “re-charge” the same allegation as a misdemeanor if grand jurors won’t indict for it as a felony.

That seems to me to violate the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on “any person be[ing] subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

The whole purpose of the jury system, including grand juries, is to constrain the power of government instead of just letting prosecutors and police throw people in the slammer at will.

When a government actor wants to deprive someone of freedom — or even of life itself — that government actor should get one, and only one “bite at the apple.” As soon as a jury (petit or grand) says “no,” it should be the end of the matter.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Camera One: “When you burn the American Flag, you’re not making a statement — you’re inciting chaos. It’s not ‘free speech,’ it’s a provocation. One year in jail, NO exceptions.” That’s US president Donald Trump, talking to reporters about his executive order on flag-burning.

Camera Two: “In cases where the Department of Justice or another executive department or agency (agency) determines that an instance of American Flag desecration may violate an applicable State or local law, such as open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction of property laws, the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate State or local authority for potential action.” That’s from the actual executive order.

In other words, Trump isn’t REALLY claiming the ability to unilaterally, and formally, repeal the First Amendment, as he sometimes does.

He’s just throwing a public “find something else to charge them with!” tantrum, presumably by way of distracting attention from the ongoing inquiries into his long, close personal association with the late sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, his embarrassment at still failing to deliver on his “first day in office” promise of ending the war in Ukraine, the bad economic news associated with his idiotic trade and tariff policies, etc.

Dog bites man story? Well, yeah.

But free speech is always worth defending, even when an attack on it is indirect and pretextual.

Yes, free speech, or at least “expressive conduct.”  It’s not just me saying that, it’s the US Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989):

“Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.”

Property rights are also worth defending. If you burn someone else’s flag without permission, that’s theft and destruction of property. If you burn a flag you own, well, you own it and you’re entitled by right to do anything with it you darn well please, so long as you don’t damage other people or other people’s property.

And by “damage other people,” I don’t mean “hurt someone’s feelings.”

According to Trump, “[o]ur great American Flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America, and of American freedom.”

Whether something is “sacred” is a matter of opinion. Whether you “cherish” the flag, or don’t, is entirely up to you to decide.

As for Trump, he routinely — if metaphorically — defecates on everything he claims the flag stands for, then wipes his posterior with it … while also wrapping himself in it. Sorry not sorry if you have trouble un-seeing THAT image. I hope it lives rent-free in your brain for years.

I’m not generally inclined toward flag-burning, if for no other reason than that I have relatives who “cherished” it, considered it “sacred,” and had it draped over their coffins,  folded, and presented to their loved ones when they died.

But Trump’s latest attempt to use the flag as, essentially, kitty litter to cover up his messes, tempts me to a “smoke’em if you got’em” attitude.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

I’m not going to lie: I don’t particularly like Cracker Barrel’s new branding. The popular restaurant chain recently replaced its iconic logo, featuring said barrel and the founder’s “Uncle Herschel” sitting in a rocking chair, with a plainer version, a stylized “barrel on its side” shape with the chain’s name on it.

As one meme going around puts it, they removed the cracker AND the barrel. Meh.

But is the new logo “woke,” as “conservative” “influencer” Robby Starbuck and others would have us believe?  Does it reveal a corporate conspiracy to brainwash the public in, perish the thought, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” doctrine, by imposing brutalist signage on  us or something of the sort?

In a word, no. The rebranding may be a poor marketing decision, but it’s exactly what it looks like: An ailing company trying to turn things around.

COVID-19 hit most restaurants pretty hard, but Cracker Barrel caters to an older, presumably more cautious, customer base that was already shrinking. Last year, CEO Julie Masino noted that 16% of customers hadn’t returned since the pandemic hit.

Getting targeted by moral panic scammers like Starbuck doesn’t help, of course, and this isn’t the first time.

Almost exactly three years ago, Starbuck was one voice in the off-pitch chorus screeching “WOKE!” when Cracker Barrel added a new item — the Impossible [TM] Sausage, a non-meat take on the classic breakfast food — to its menu.

Yes, really.

They lost their minds because a popular, but flagging in popularity, restaurant chain tried to make its menu more attractive to a growing demographic: Those who choose to eat less, or even no, meat for any number of reasons.

Cracker Barrel didn’t remove ham or country fried steak from its menu. It didn’t require its servers to wear tie-dyes, get their noses pierced, and lecture customers on checking their privilege.  It just added a menu option. Don’t want the Impossible [TM] Sausage? Don’t order it. “Problem” solved!

I wouldn’t go so far as to blame Starbuck and his crack-brained co-complainers for Cracker Barrel’s business problems. They’re real problems, with real underlying causes. Markets change. Demographics shift. Businesses fail. That’s just life.

But the “extremely online right” and its social media enabled attacks, which often go way beyond idiotic, probably can’t help.

Or maybe, just maybe, they can.

I only eat at Cracker Barrel every couple of years. Part of that is “out of sight, out of mind.”

When I think about Cracker Barrel, I think good things about Cracker Barrel.

And Robby Starbuck’s antics have me thinking about Cracker Barrel.

Suddenly, I’m craving Grandpa’s Country Fried Breakfast, and perhaps some classic candy bars to take home from their “country store.” Maybe I’ll see you there!

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY