Peace Bond: Good Law, Bad Application to Pastor Terry Jones Creates Violation of Free Speech

myFOXdetroit.com - Koran burning Reverend Terry Jones’ First Amendment right to free speech was trampled upon recently in Dearborn because of the improper use of the “peace bond” statute. Jones was prosecuted under this rarely used statute enacted during Abraham Lincoln’s time and codified in Michigan law in 1927. The “peace bond” statute, although old, is constitutional, yet has no application in the Jones case.

The statute (MCL 772.2) says that a complaint, here by Wayne County Prosecutor Kim Worthy, must prove that Jones has “threatened to commit an offense against the person or property of another.” If a judge believes that then another statute allows for a jury trial where the only question for the jury is whether Jones is “likely to breach the peace.” If the jury says, yes, than the judge will set a recognizance bond (a peace bond). If Jones refuses to pay, the judge has the authority under another statute to send Jones to jail. This is what happened in Dearborn.

No evidence existed to prove that Jones threatened to commit an offense against anyone in Dearborn.

In an 1874 case interpreting this statute, Jasper Sweet (the Kim Worthy figure), accused Henry Negus (the Jones figure) of threatening to kill Sweet’s cow and that Sweet was afraid Negus would kill his cow in the future. Here, a specific threat was made – the killing of the cow. In this situation, the statute makes sense since there was an “actual” threat. The jury, however, found Sweet’s accusations were groundless – no cow killing! Jones has not threatened to kill a cow, Koran, or anything in Dearborn.

But what about the words that Jones was about to speak? Surely, his words could be threatening. One only has to look to the principal in an 1889 case for the answer. Here, William Foster entered the house of William Goodwin. Foster used “obscene language” in front of the Goodwin’s wife. Goodwin’s complaint said that Foster’s “performance was the vaporizing of a filthy-minded person who’s tongue was loosened by drinking.” Oh my! Yet only Foster’s words were said to have breached the peace. The court concluded that “hard words break no bones is as well maintained in the theory of jurisprudence as in the popular sentiment.” The case failed to meet the requirements of “peace bond” statute.

Fast forward about 100 years. In 1999, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that this very statute was constitutional. The case involved disputing neighbors. The court ruled that there must be “some threat of personal violence” before a jury heard the case. Burning a Koran weeks ago is not personal violence. In fact, testimony from a Dearborn police officer revealed that some 40 email messages threatened the life of Reverend Jones NOT that Jones threatened the life of 40 people. The prosecutor should seek a peace bond against each of those 40 people.

Bottom Line: Unfortunately, Reverend Jones’ few hours in jail before posting a $1.00 recognizance bond has made him a poster child for all First Amendment principles. Without the basic finding that Jones threatened anyone in Dearborn there was no violation of Michigan law and this case should have been thrown out by the court.

That's Charlie's opinion, what's yours?  Sound-off your comments in the module below.

Charlie Langton, a Troy resident, is a local attorney. He regularly provides legal commentary for Fox 2 News and WWJ News Radio 950. Charlie is a trustee of Michigan State University College of Law. You can reach him at clangton@langtonlaw.com.