Minister's Editorial Is Not Basis For Revoking His Probation

A Michigan appellate court, while upholding the conviction of Rev. Edward Pinkney for paying voters $5 apiece to vote in an election for the recall of a city commissioner and for possessing absentee ballots, reversed the lower court's revocation of Pinkney's probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court had required that Pinkney refrain from "any assaultive, abusive, defamatory, demeaning, harassing, violent, threatening, or intimidating behavior, including the use, through any electronic or print media under [his] care, custody or control, of the mail, e-mail or internet."

Shortly after the trial court denied Pinkney's request for a new trial, he wrote an editorial for a Chicago monthly newspaper charging the judge who denied his motion with being a racist, and said he was "dumb" and "corrupt." One paragraph in the editorial, paraphrasing several verses from Deuteronomy, said:

Judge Butzbaugh, it shall come to pass; if thou continue not to hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all that is right; which I command thee this day, that all these Curses shall come upon you and your family, curses shalt be in the City of St. Joseph and Cursed shalt thou be in the field, cursed [sic] shall come upon you and your family and over take thee; cursed shall be the fruit of thy body. The Lord shall smite thee with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning. They the demons shall Pursue thee until thou persist.

In People of the State of Michigan v. Pinkney, (MI Ct. App., July 14, 2009), the state court of appeals held that revoking Pinkney's probation for writing the editorial was improper. It held:

To the extent that the prohibition of defamatory and demeaning behavior impinges on defendant’s first amendment rights, the prohibition was not proper, as it was not directly related to defendant’s rehabilitation or to the protection of the public.

The court concluded that it need not decide whether the paraphrase of Biblical verses violated the parole condition barring threatening behavior. It said:

Plaintiff agrees that the paraphrase of Deuteronomy 28 "is not defensible as anything other that [sic] hyperbole" and that the paraphrase could not serve as a lawful basis for revoking defendant’s probation.

AP yesterday reported on the decision. An ACLU press release on the decision contains links to several briefs supporting Pinkey's position that were filed in the case.