McKay said he was troubled that a prosecutor appeared to have no knowledge of "one of the most notorious cases of our time," referring to Texas vs. Johnson, the 1989 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas' flag desecration law. The justice went on to comment that there appeared to be serious ethical problems with Yocom's office filing a charge without adequate exploration of the facts.

Justices pressed Ferre on whether the state of Utah thinks the flag law is unconstitutional or if it believes there are times when the law could be used.

Ferre said he did not know how he could respond to the question.

McConnell also expressed concern that the Salt Lake County deputy did not appear to be educated on the fact that the law was not usable. In addition, McConnell noted that there did not appear to be a clear policy at Yocom's office where it would inform law enforcement of recent court rulings.

Justices did note that Yocom's assurance not to use the law did help to remedy some of Winsness' issues. However they did note that the statement did not apply to any other county prosecutor in Utah and there was some question if the statement would bind any future DA from using the law.

The court took the arguments under advisement and will issue an opinion in writing at a later date. Barnard said if the court does find in his client's favor, they will seek a ruling that would directly deem Utah's law unconstitutional.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com