Eyewitness account of Chambless' bench trial. What a mockery of justice.
http://www.thearkansasproject.com/what-i-saw-at-the-trial-or-dustin-mcdaniels-revenge/Synopsis:
The defense attorney made an opening statement arguing that to prove that the defendant was breaking the law, the prosecution would have to demonstrate that the defendant was carrying a weapon with an unlawful purpose – so “in order to find him guilty, you’ve got to say that self-defense is illegal in the state of Arkansas.”
After that it went downhill fast.
The prosecution called several witnesses that stated someone carrying a gun is scary. The prosecutor then concluded that was proof that Chambless was guilty of disorderly conduct.
The Chief of Police was asked what evidence there was of Chambless’ unlawful conduct. He explained that Chambless’ weapon was not properly holstered. Therefore Chambless was guilty of illegally carrying a weapon. I guess.
The prosecutor then stated that there was no need to carry a gun into McDonald’s, essentially arguing that Chambless had to prove his innocence, not that the prosecutor had to prove his guilt. (This is known as improperly shifting the burden of proof).
The judge at first said that he thought the law allowed open carry, asking “Doesn’t that statute provide that, as long as you’re not doing something illegal, you get to carry it?” but then said the law confused him. The defense argued then that according to the "rule of lenity" Chambless should be found not guilty.
The judge finally concluded, “I just don’t think you have the right to carry a loaded gun in public under this statute,” and told Chambless that his behavior was “physically offensive.”
He then found him guilty of both carrying a weapon and of disorderly conduct.
