He Heckled a District Attorney on TV. Now He Faces 10 Years Behind Bars.
On Wednesday, a Massachusetts judge will decide whether Joao DePina will face the possibility of a decade behind bars for publicly criticizing a district attorney.

On Wednesday morning, Joao DePina will walk into a Massachusetts courthouse to learn whether he could face the possibility of spending a decade behind bars.
His alleged crime? Heckling a district attorney from afar during a live press conference.
DePina repeatedly interrupted then-Suffolk County D.A. Rachael Rollins during a November press conference to criticize Rollins' professional and personal behavior. His shouts were picked up on local news broadcasts, and Rollins paused on several occasions to ask DePina to stop interrupting her attempt to give an update on two cops who had been shot earlier that day. DePina also livestreamed his tirade, during which he criticized Rollins' nomination to be a U.S. attorney (she was confirmed to the post in December, becoming the first black woman to be U.S. attorney for Massachusetts).
While DePina's behavior during the press conference was clearly uncivil and rude, prosecutors say it's also criminal. DePina was charged in November with one count of witness intimidation in connection to his antics at Rollins' press conference. He could face between 2.5 and 10 years in prison if convicted.
"This is the most grossly unconstitutional thing I have seen in my entire career," Marc Randazza, a free speech attorney who is representing DePina, tells Reason. "If the First Amendment means anything, Joao walks free."
In court documents, Randazza describes DePina's arrest and subsequent charges as "censorious and unconstitutional," and asks for the charge to be dropped. A hearing was held in March on the motion to dismiss the charge, and District Judge Carol Ann Fraser is due to announce her decision on that matter Wednesday. If she rules against DePina, the case will proceed to trial.
Meanwhile, prosecutors alleged in court documents that DePina ran afoul of Massachusetts law by criticizing Rollins at the same time that he was the defendant in "three separate and open cases pending in District Court which were being prosecuted by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office," which Rollins ran at the time. His tirade was an attempt to influence her handling of those cases, prosecutors argue, making his speech "neither lawful nor protected."
But that argument seems to ignore the substance of DePina's November tirade aimed at Rollins. Though he veered from political to personal attacks and back again on several occasions, DePina never referenced the legal proceedings and never threatened Rollins.
"Mr. DePina made no threats. Mr. DePina engaged in no form of harassment, nor anything that could possibly be construed as intimidation of someone connected to a pending criminal proceeding," Randazza argues in court documents. "Rather, Mr. DePina exercised his right to criticize a District Attorney for abusing her power, opportunistically seeking higher office without caring for the people of Boston, and not taking adequate care of Boston police officers."
The case, he argues, is Rollins' attempt to "abusively use the power of the state to swat down a political opponent."
As Reason's Billy Binion noted recently in connection to another case where someone was arrested for criticizing law enforcement, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects "the freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest," calling that right one of the chief distinctions separating "a free nation from a police state."
Adding to this case's weirdness is the fact that DePina appeared to have volunteered for Rollins' successful 2018 campaign to become district attorney, according to photos unearthed by a local political blog, TB Daily News. The same blog notes that DePina has pulled the same antics at other high-profile press conferences in recent years. He also ran unsuccessfully for Boston City Council in 2017.
DePina seems to be a troll. That's no reason to throw a man in jail for a decade—or at all.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"DePina seems to be a troll. That's no reason to throw a man in jail for a decade—or at all."
Well - - - - - - -
Right, and I'm sure he feels the same when it comes to Alex Jones.
well, considering I don't know of a single article in which Boehm has argued that Alex Jones should be thrown in jail, that seems like a pretty accurate conclusion.
DePina never referenced the legal proceedings and never threatened Rollins is a MacGuffin - the law does not require either of those two things to be proven in order to be found guilty. Simply harassing an attorney you know to be involved in several cases you are part of is enough to produce a finding of guilt. If you are personally involved in such cases the law says you back off, period. The law builds in a 'gag' order and for good reason. Hefty fine, suspended sentence and 2.5 years of probation seems reasonable if this is a first offense.
How does boot leather taste?
If the law doesn't "Require either of those two things" then the law is overbroad and the enforcement a violation of DePina's rights.
Simple.
When an act of any legislature in these United States purports to supersede the first amendment, it is not a law at all, but an attempt at usurpation. DePina is innocent, and fuck you for approving of the state's attempt to punish him for saying what he wants to say.
-jcr
IANAL, and this sounds from the way you express it like established case law.
Please elaborate. I would be grateful for a better legal understanding.
I'm going to call bullshit, NB is making a false assertion.
Is he black? Why didn't the cops just shoot him? Or suffocate him if that's the preferred local method.
Was he arrested? Or charged later?
This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Maybe there is some big thing I'm missing, but this does feel like it should be a slam dunk for the defense. Fuck 'em.
If we can imprison people for being trolls, I can think of a few right here in our midst...
Tony is a jackass, but I wouldn't lock him up for being a jackass.
-jcr
Absolutely, 1A protects your freedom of speech, even if said speaker is an asshole. This is just more authoritarian BS.
I see she is an "advocate for criminal justice reform" but criticism of her is not on the list of non prosecutable offenses.
And of course she is/was a "Soros DA."
Part of that reform is the realization that hate speech is not free speech. And free speech does not include private companies. And free speech is actually racist.
And now... criminal.
See? All is well, citizen.
In Soviet Russia, a young boy of 12 was sentenced to 10 years for hanging his coat on a bust of stalin while playing in the yard with a friend.
Now that's progressive.
I imagine a scene from Chernobyl; someone sees something and says something, and the town soviet committee has a meeting to discuss. "Yes, he is but a boy, but comrades, are you just going to do nothing about this? What will happen when Secretary Stalin hears of this insult? Are you willing to allow this offense to the Soviet leadership and bear the consequences to yourselves, to your families? Much better that we send this silly urchin to Siberia and be done with it! Instead we will show our leader how committed and serious we are!"
Ah, the utilitarian response! The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. I guess that's why we have rights that clarify.
Now I want to make a product line of coathooks featuring the despicable visages of all the notorious commie scumbags, from Marx to Xi.
-jcr
Skip the coathooks-- go with urinal cakes.
They don't last as long.
-jcr
Joao DePina is fortunate to have Marc Randazza on his side. From what I have read about Randazza, he is a well-known expert on First Amendment law, and a very dedicated and skilled defense attorney. In these sorts of cases, he tends to run circles around the prosecution, and make them look like the foolish, mean, and vindictive control freaks they are. Some may, at times, question Randazza's flamboyant methods, but he is always on the right side and he gets positive results. DePina's speech in this case is a prime example of exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.
"May it please the court: Rachael Rollins is a brittle, incompetent, vindictive, and power-hungry cunt, and my client's actions to call attention to these facts is a vital public service. For the sake of the court's reputation, I move for dismissal of all charges and demand sanctions against the persecution including, but not limited to tarring and feathering at noon tomorrow on the steps of the courthouse."
-jcr
It should also be noted that the defendant is being charged with witness intimidation, and it should be pointed out that the district attorney is not a witness in this case.
Then skip the tarring and feathering and bring out the chipper.
Of course I’m referring to the following, thanks to the police state we live in:
https://www.brainstormgolf.com/are-golf-chippers-legal/
You know you’re in a police state when you have to ask if a golf club is legal.
Your jib? I like its cut.
Got it at Jibs-R-Us back during the Ed Clark campaign.
-jcr
i think the big key here is the difference between annoying and intimidating. there is a big trend these days to pretend something is a bigger deal than it actually is..... a trend that is even bigger in prosecutors offices, because they have been doing this kind of thing for decades, where they throw all the charges they can at someone in hopes of getting them to plead to the lower (maybe legit) charges.
on the surface, i think this should get dropped, and they should probably be sued for even charging him.
DA's don't have "qualified immunity" they have "absolute immunity".
Suing them is basically impossible.
Special shout out to Harry Connick Jr.'s dad!
Thanks Harry!
Pretty spot on here. In my experience with people alleging "harrassment", it occasionally is used to encompass legitimate stalking, intimidation, and/or threatening behavior for which some level of state intervention (civil protective order or criminal charge) is indicated. Far more often, particularly in recent years, it is an umbrella b.s. term used by pussies who can't handle being criticized, spoken to in a mean tone, or offended/called a bad word.
The process is the punishment. And putting him through the punishing process should result in punishment for the DA cunt, but it won't.
On the one hand, there are no actual quotes from his heckling (kudos to Reason’s deep investigative reporting) so it’s hard to judge what his behavior was. On the other hand, a simple “Nice life, I hope nothing happens to it.” is enough to cause people to flee in panic. It would be nice to have a full and balanced story. Also it would be nice to be able to trust reporters. But here we are.
Maybe it’s just me, but I would have thought that linking directly to video of the event in question (as Boehm did) would meet your desire to know what was said and done and make it easy to judge what his behavior and let you make up your own mind, but I guess I am wrong.
that link is just the news coverage, and it isn't clear what exactly is being said. link to the full recording he posted on facebook would have been better.
You are right. But Trump Trilbys and Biden bumpkins send out to have their minds made up for them--then come here to whine against each other. The one thing a libertarian audience wants is exposure to more tear-stained pouty whiners of the looter persuasion.
You don't trust then to lie to you yet?
Where the hell do you think you are, man?
The nice thing about a mute button is that it works on mouthy fish too.
becoming the first black woman to be U.S. attorney for Massachusetts).
Mess with the Strong Black Woman, get the Strong Black Horns.
Jesus, it's not like he defaced a rainbow crosswalk or a BLM slogan in the middle of the street.
Those are sacred symbols of the prog state religion.
I’ll reserve judgment until there is an article with actual facts and with less of an agenda.
Part of the problem is that Ms Rollins has said that "minor" crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism won't be prosecuted while she's in charge. But she has time for this?????
She has but two qualifications for office: a second X chromasome and a high amount of melanin.
Orwell told how the British Union of Fascists had goons beat the bloody stool out of hecklers at Oswald Mosley events. American Police unions and lobbyists beg politicians for more cruel laws, more deadly violence, and immunity from justice. Small wonder the dumber sort retaliate against them and hate their apologists. By voting libertarian you send a signal to the politicians who take advice from violent lobbies whose court goons cuff and cage hecklers--same function as Mosley's guys, just less obvious.
Of course, threatening Supreme Court Justice family at their home is freedom of speach, but interrupting a DA at a press conference is criminal offense.
Why is it always some hooknosed slag under a bridge threatening goats trying to cross it that calls a goat a troll?
Thats what trolls do. Projection fallacy.
The fat slag should be disbarred.
Charges were dropped by the judge.
https://www.wcvb.com/article/charge-dropped-against-man-who-heckled-suffolk-county-district-attorney-rachael-rollins-during-press-conference/40104998
It's called free speech ! When are these criminals going to start obeying the constitution? Those filing these charges should be going to jail !
This has malicious prosecution written all over it.
The “sensitivity” of some in public life is amazing, truly amazing.
Florida State Senator Lauren Book tried having me silenced through litigation and she ultimately lost. In response, she helped Ron DeSantis pass anti-protest legislation. Toss out all these corrupt fools!