Gadfly Acquitted on Charges He Disrupted Downey Council

DOWNEY — A jury has found a 23-year-old Bell Gardens man not guilty of disrupting a Downey City Council meeting and resisting arrest.

Stanley Wantuch, who represented himself during the trial in Los Cerritos Municipal Court in Bellflower, claimed that his First Amendment rights were violated. He was tried for disrupting meetings on Oct. 25 and Nov. 15 and for resisting arrest on Nov. 15 when he was asked to return to his seat to videotape a council meeting instead of standing in the aisle.

The jury of six men and six women reached the verdict Friday after two weeks of testimony by 23 witnesses, including Downey Mayor Robert G. Cormack.

Wantuch spoke often during Downey council meetings. He considers himself a city government watchdog, and before his arrest he had videotaped council meetings without incident.

Case Transferred

Five Downey Municipal Court judges said they could not preside over the misdemeanor trial because of previous contacts and relationships with Downey City Council members. The Downey court calendar was full, so the case was transferred to a Municipal Court in Bellflower.

Cormack disagreed with the verdict, saying that the judge and jury did not “completely understand what had transpired.” He said he will continue to run the council meetings by Robert’s Rules of Order and the City Charter.

“Well,” Cormack said, “the judge and the jury have the right to be wrong. This is America. The meeting has to be properly chaired. I can’t abdicate the responsibility of the chair.”

Judge Norris Goodwin, who tried the case, said that had the jury reached a guilty verdict, he would have overturned the decision.

“Just because the man is an annoyance doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination mean that a crime has been committed,” he said.

Goodwin said three key issues emerged during the trial:

He questioned the legality of the arrest order. The council had the right to have Wantuch removed from the council chamber, but may have exceeded its authority by ordering his arrest, Goodwin said, referring to a section of the City Charter.

Definition Needed

He said the sergeant-at-arms’ duties need to be more clearly defined. He should keep order at the meeting but not arrest anyone, Goodwin said.

And he said the guarantee of freedom of speech allows any citizen the right to address the council, regardless of the manner in which they speak.

“Those are pretty severe types of legal questions, I would say,” Goodwin said.

Cormack said during an interview that he has received complaints from people complaining that Wantuch was too verbose in speaking before the council. Critics urged the mayor to get better control of the meetings.

After Wantuch was removed from the council chamber in October, the council, voting 3 to 2, passed an ordinance that set standards of public conduct at meetings.

The law prohibits all demonstrations, such as clapping and cheering, placards and posters in the council chamber. Any video or audio taping must be done from a seat in the audience without disturbing the meeting. The law also reinforced the five-minute limitation on those who speak during the meeting.

It was that ordinance that led to Wantuch’s second removal from the council meeting and subsequent arrest in November. He was tried for disrupting the Oct. 25 and Nov. 15 meetings and on a charge of resisting arrest on Nov. 15. The mayor said in the police arrest report that he repeatedly told Wantuch to take his seat because he was not speaking to the issue before the council.

But Wantuch refused to leave the podium, according to the police report.

Former Mayor Bob Davila said during the 10-day trial that videotaping of council meetings was not something that Wantuch introduced. According to Davila, Councilman Roy Paul videotaped many sessions before being elected to office.

“He was moving all around (the chamber) like a jumping bean,” Davila said of Paul. “I think he (Wantuch) never should have been charged in the first place.

“Cormack has a history of not letting people talk. He even censored me one time. . . . He likes to rule with an iron hand and hide behind the claim of disrupting a meeting. He doesn’t realize that the public has a constitutional right to say their piece,” Davila said.

Two-Sided Comment

Cormack said that Davila “spoke out of both sides of his mouth. He told me how much he believed in what I was doing,” Cormack said of their conversations outside of the courtroom. “So, it depends on who he was speaking to,” he said.

Cormack said he believes in allowing the public to speak, “but not the same person three to four times.”

“It was his third time up at the same meeting and I pointed it out to the judge. It was a miscarriage of justice. However, it is the U.S.A. and if the judge persuaded the jury . . . he doesn’t have a thorough knowledge of the City Charter or a thorough knowledge of Robert’s Rules of Order,” Cormack said.

In the arrest report, Sgt. William McCullom said that he was told by Wantuch, “You’re going to have a lot harder time getting me out this time than you did last time.”

McCullom reported that Wantuch tensed his muscles and resisted police efforts to escort him to his seat. “Wantuch placed both arms in front of his body and clenched his hands together and stiffened his legs to prevent me from walking him to the side of the council chamber,” McCullom said.

$50,000 Damage Claim

Wantuch has filed a $50,000 claim against Downey for damages and injuries he allegedly received when he was bodily removed from the council chamber in November. The claim is pending.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Terese Farrell said she tried to show the jury that Wantuch disrupted the meetings, perhaps with the intent of filing a lawsuit.

Farrell said: “I think it is a kind of a threshold case as far as First Amendment rights goes. How far can someone go in a city council meeting? I think the people put on an adequate case; apparently, the jury disagreed.”

It took the jury nearly seven hours to acquit Wantuch.

Wantuch, who listed his occupation as repairman, smiled and breathed a short sigh as the verdict was read. He said he was “delighted” with the decision and does not foresee any changes in his behavior.

“I’ll just keep doing what I always do,” he said with a smile.