Man convicted of indecent exposure...in his own home

[Archaic`]

Source: MSNBC

Man convicted of in-home indecent exposure
2 women say they saw him naked from windows of his Virginia home

FAIRFAX, Va. - As Erick Williamson sees it, being naked is liberating, and if passers-by get an eyeful while he's standing in front of a picture window, that's not his problem.

A Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions about what's OK when you're in your own home.

Two women said they saw much more of Williamson than they cared to in October, even though he never left the confines of his home. He received neither jail time nor a fine but is appealing anyway, saying a larger principle is at stake.

"I think that being tried and found guilty of something like this is outrageous," Williamson said after he was convicted and sentenced. "I feel like I'm living in a fishbowl."

Williamson testified that he never intended to expose himself and was simply exercising "personal freedom" as he spent several hours naked in his Springfield home packing up belongings.

Police, prosecutors and two witnesses, though, said Williamson's actions were designed to draw attention to himself.

The first woman, school librarian Joyce Giuliani, said she heard some loud singing as she left her home and drove to work. As she drove by Williamson's home, she saw him naked, standing directly behind a large picture window.

'Eye contact'
A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school along a trail that runs by Williamson's home.

She heard a loud rattle, looked to her left and saw Williamson standing naked, full frontal, in a side doorway.

"He gave me eye contact," Dean said, but otherwise made no gestures toward her or her son.

As she turned the corner, she looked back at the home, in disbelief at what she had just seen. Again, she saw Williamson, naked in the same picture window.

One of Williamson's housemates testified that Williamson had been nude well before dawn. Timothy Baclit testified that he woke up around 5 a.m. to go to work and found saw Williamson walking around "naked ... with a hard hat."

He said he warned Williamson that he would be visible to passers-by but that Williamson did not respond.

Williamson, 29, said the conversation with Baclit never occurred and that he never noticed that two women had seen him. He said "it did not occur to me" that people outside the home might see him naked.

'No one deserves to see it'
Regardless of whether he was seen, Williamson's conduct does not constitute indecent exposure, said his attorney, Dickson Young.

Under Virginia law, the charge requires "an obscene display or exposure" and must occur in "a public place or a place where others are present."

Young argued that neither prong had been met.

"Mere nudity is insufficient to declare conduct obscene," Young said, noting that none of the women testified that Williamson was aroused or that he made any sort of obscene gesture. "Nudity in one's own home is not a crime."

Fairfax County Prosecutor Marc Birnbaum said the witness testimony shows that he intended to expose himself to the women by making himself visible for extended periods of time and drawing attention to himself by making rattling noises and singing.

"No one deserves to see it, certainly not a young child," Birnbaum said.

Birnbaum sought jail time for Williamson, but General District Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty imposed only a suspended sentence, meaning that Williamson will serve no jail time if he keeps out of trouble.

If Williamson follows through on his plans to appeal, though, a circuit court judge could impose a stiffer punishment, technically up to a year in jail.

Williamson's Oct. 24 arrest received national attention and spurred debate about the boundaries of acceptable nudity.

Debate rages on
Kent Willis, director of the Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said there is no line that defines what is acceptable in these types of cases.

"How you define public and private space depends on the behavior that's taking place," Willis said. He said that if the case is pursued through appellate courts, it could potentially provide more clarity on what constitutes indecent exposure in Virginia.

Williamson, a commercial diver who has since moved out of Fairfax County, said he was shocked by the verdict. He suggested after the hearing that he was the victim of a double standard.

"If I was looking in her window, I think we'd be having a whole different conversation," he said.

Will the American Legal System ever cease to be a source of amusement and horror for the rest of the world, seriously?

[Dalton]

Old news, but looks like an updated story. What the fuck?

[Solauren]

Geez, what's next?

Two people having sex in their bedroom, and the window blinds/curtains failing (i.e falling, open window allows breeze to move them, etc), and getting charged with sex in public?

First rule of being a good person: Don't look into other peoples homes without there permission. It's called respecting privacy. Even if you hear singing and rattling, it's that persons home, and none of your business.

[Simon_Jester]

Didn't we end up concluding that, reading between the lines, a big part of the reason this might have gone forward was that the woman in question was the wife of a police officer?

Doesn't make the legal aspect any less stupid, of course.

[weemadando]

Geez, what's next?

Two people having sex in their bedroom, and the window blinds/curtains failing (i.e falling, open window allows breeze to move them, etc), and getting charged with sex in public?

First rule of being a good person: Don't look into other peoples homes without there permission. It's called respecting privacy. Even if you hear singing and rattling, it's that persons home, and none of your business.

I and my wife (and most people I know) have seen multiple instances of people having sex in public or having sex in their houses in full view of the public. None have ever reported it to the police that I'm aware of. Indeed, in situations that I am aware of where the police have intervened in such a situation there's rarely been anything more than a "put your clothes on and get a move on" or a "close your blinds please". Not a goddamn criminal charge.

[SecondToDie]

There is no mention of a jury in a the article. I wonder why the man chose to have himself tried by a judge instead of a jury. I seriously doubt the prosecutors could have convinced twelve jurors to convict him.

[bobalot]

There is no mention of a jury in a the article. I wonder why the man chose to have himself tried by a judge instead of a jury. I seriously doubt the prosecutors could have convinced twelve jurors to convict him.

Wouldn't that depend where the trial was? I can imagine a high religious jury convicting.

[Simon_Jester]

Even that might be tricky; wouldn't you need unanimity? It's not as if the prosecution gets to pick all the jurors, after all.

[General Zod]

There is no mention of a jury in a the article. I wonder why the man chose to have himself tried by a judge instead of a jury. I seriously doubt the prosecutors could have convinced twelve jurors to convict him.

Juries are typically composed of slack jawed idiots who don't give two fucks about whether or not justice is done. Frankly I'd sooner defend myself than rely on a jury for anything even remotely serious.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I notice the testimony the complaintant is giving in the most recent story is different than what she said in the original article. I wonder what's up with that.

[Sarevok]

What if two guys were caught staring at a young woman walking around nude in her home ? Would she be charged with indecent expouser or would the men be labelled perverts ?

[Solauren]

What if two guys were caught staring at a young woman walking around nude in her home ? Would she be charged with indecent expouser or would the men be labelled perverts ?

They'd be nailed with some kind of charge.

Quite frankly, if the 'nudist' in the situation had any brains, he'd have lauched counter-charges.

[PeZook]

"No one deserves to see it, certainly not a young child," Birnbaum said.

Here it is again.

OMG, the man has a penis! The boy will be scarred for life by seeing it!

[Stofsk]

What if two guys were caught staring at a young woman walking around nude in her home ? Would she be charged with indecent expouser or would the men be labelled perverts ?

They'd be nailed with some kind of charge.

Quite frankly, if the 'nudist' in the situation had any brains, he'd have lauched counter-charges.

How can you launch 'counter-charges' to a criminal offense, which is what this person was accused of committing?

He wasn't being sued, and thus could launch a counter-suit, but he was being accused of a crime.

[General Zod]

What if two guys were caught staring at a young woman walking around nude in her home ? Would she be charged with indecent expouser or would the men be labelled perverts ?

They'd be nailed with some kind of charge.

Quite frankly, if the 'nudist' in the situation had any brains, he'd have lauched counter-charges.

How can you launch 'counter-charges' to a criminal offense, which is what this person was accused of committing?

He wasn't being sued, and thus could launch a counter-suit, but he was being accused of a crime.

According to the man's claim in the previous article, the woman was crossing his back or side yard, which isn't really public. He could have pressed trespassing charges.

[Stofsk]

According to the man's claim in the previous article, the woman was crossing his back or side yard, which isn't really public. He could have pressed trespassing charges.

I have doubts about this guy's credibility. But anyway, how can he personally press any charges whatsoever when he's been accused of a crime? It's the police and prosecution who determine whether a case goes to court, not a complainant.

[General Zod]

According to the man's claim in the previous article, the woman was crossing his back or side yard, which isn't really public. He could have pressed trespassing charges.

I have doubts about this guy's credibility. But anyway, how can he personally press any charges whatsoever when he's been accused of a crime? It's the police and prosecution who determine whether a case goes to court, not a complainant.

Very easily? Numerous lawsuits have established a precedent that you can press charges against your accuser regardless of your situation, since a crime is still a crime.

[Aeolus]

There is no mention of a jury in a the article. I wonder why the man chose to have himself tried by a judge instead of a jury. I seriously doubt the prosecutors could have convinced twelve jurors to convict him.

Juries are typically composed of slack jawed idiots who don't give two fucks about whether or not justice is done. Frankly I'd sooner defend myself than rely on a jury for anything even remotely serious.

The general advice I have always heard was if your actually guilty of the charge ask for a jury trial. If your really innocent have a judge judge you.

[Johonebesus]

There is no mention of a jury in a the article. I wonder why the man chose to have himself tried by a judge instead of a jury. I seriously doubt the prosecutors could have convinced twelve jurors to convict him.

Wasn't there a case not too many years ago of a store owner who was convicted of providing pornography to minors because he stocked adult comic books from Japan? A jury convicted him even though he had refused to sell the magazines to minors the cops sent in to catch him. It boiled down to jury not being able to get past the idea that comic books are inherently children's entertainment, so they must be intended for children, so the store owner must have been selling them to kids.

The moral of the story is that juries are notoriously biased and stupid and easily manipulated.