From Deseret News archives:

Flag-case prosecution spurs concern

Justices assail state because Utah law is unconstitutional

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2005 9:40 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Justices with the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals expressed concern that a county prosecutor in Utah would choose to prosecute someone under a flag desecration law that has been deemed unconstitutional since 1989 and that Salt Lake County law enforcement appears ill-informed about such rulings.

The harsh questioning against the state came during oral arguments held at a special session Wednesday at the University of Utah law school concerning a man who was charged under a Utah law that criminalizes the desecration of U.S. and state flags.

In October 2002, frustrated with the justice system, Kris Winsness burned the image of a "smiley face" onto a U.S. flag and hung it on his garage door.

Offended neighbors called the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office, and a deputy was sent to investigate. Upon questioning Winsness, the deputy took the flag as evidence and later Winsness was charged by Salt Lake County District Attorney David Yocom's office with violating Utah's flag desecration law, which is a class B misdemeanor.

Ultimately, prosecutors dropped the charge against Winsness without prejudice, allowing them to refile the charge at any time. However, in an affidavit Yocom assured that he would not prosecute anyone again under the flag desecration law.

Story continues below
During oral arguments before U.S. Appellate Justices Monroe McKay, Michael McConnell and Timothy Tymkovich, attorney Brian Barnard held up a cocktail toothpick shaped like the U.S. flag to show that Utah's law is vague and unconstitutional.

"It doesn't define what a flag is," Barnard said.

But justices wondered if charges were dropped and Yocom has promised not to use the law again, what damages can Winsness claim?

At issue before the court is whether or not Winsness has legal standing to bring his case forward. Part of that is he must show he has suffered past — or will suffer future— damages because of the charge. Barnard pointed out that his client is damaged because there is not a criminal record of the charge. Explaining that the law was deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court to, say, a future employer is hardly a reality, Barnard said.

Justices saved their hard questions for Deputy Utah Attorney General Joel Ferre.

"A mistake was made" in prosecuting Winsness, Ferre said. This led the state to ultimately drop charges.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Congrats to TCU and Boise State. Great seasons both! However,This game...

is going to hand it to Boise State. I would take that to Vegas. TCU by 14...

When I lived in Las Vegas, although I had already Graduated form Institute, I...

Letters: Preening president

Yes, I want honesty and integrity from Obama, and from what I've seen so far,...

I was so sad to hear of Bro. LeBaron's passing! He was, and is, a great man,...

Letters: Obama needs reminder

1. Anyone who has not read and understood the bills in their entirety should...

Emerald Bowl had their choice between OSU, Cal or USC. They took USC, leaving...

You never know now-a-days what is going to come out in the news about...

Brother LeBaron was a wonderful man. I had the privilege of serving with him...

Why don't they just rename it "The BYU Bowl" This is the most amateurish of...

Advertisements