Wearing a hood or mask is a crime?
Yes, it is a violation of the DC Criminal Code... but only if wearing the mask was meant to intimidate, threaten or harass another person. Hopefully, the jury will see through the bullshit and understand the true purpose for wearing masks at protests.
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
(b)
The provisions of subsection (a) of this section apply only if the person was wearing the hood, mask, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the law or of equal privileges and immunities under the law, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of the United States or the District of Columbia from giving or securing for all persons within the District of Columbia equal protection of the law;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of his or her exercise of any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws, or to intimidate any person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws;
(3)
With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person;
(4) With the intent to cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety, or, where it is probable that reasonable persons will be put in fear for their personal safety by the defendant's actions, with reckless disregard for that probability; or
(5) While engaged in conduct prohibited by civil or criminal law, with the intent of avoiding identification.
http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html#dc
From
tikk (an attorney who posts on WWP):
He might not even have to go that far. From what I've seen Brian usually didn't wear a mask, which means that his identity was known to Belotte. Thus, besides the obvious affirmative reasons for wearing the mask, the acknowledged fact that he usually did not wear one undercuts the argument that he intended to intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass.
It's somewhat of a disgrace that the complaint was amended just prior to trial. Even if the Brady violation (a further disgrace to this DA) didn't come up the trial would've had to bumped anyway so that Sparrow could defend the new charge.