Defense will turn to free speech

Attorneys for two former Glenelg High students point to First Amendment

Attorneys for two of the former Glenelg High School students facing hate-crime charges are expected to argue that the slurs found at the high school amount to constitutionally protected free speech.

In court documents filed this past week, the attorneys say they want hate-crime charges against their clients thrown out, citing a 26-year-old Supreme Court case that declared a Minnesota law violated free-speech rights.

Prosecutors in Howard County allege that four teens, who were then seniors at the west-central county school, were involved in vandalism that included swastikas and racial epithets, including one police said was aimed at the school’s principal, painted on the school’s parking lot, sidewalks and exterior walls May 24.

Charged with identical seven-count indictments — three counts related to religious or race harassment, two destruction of property-related counts and two trespassing counts — the teens could face up to three years behind bars and a $5,000 fine on the most serious charges.

Brian Thompson, attorney for one of the teens, Matthew Lipp, 18, of Woodbine, filed a motion to dismiss the three counts related to religious or race harassment.

“My client is not going to plead guilty to a statute that violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Thompson said.

Mark Muffoletto, attorney for Tyler Curtiss, 18, of Brookeville, also filed a motion to dismiss the hate crime charges, according to court records.

Muffoletto did not respond to requests for comment, but in the motion argues the graffiti found at Glenelg did not insult, incite, or provoke violence on the basis of race, color, gender, creed or religion nor could it be inferred in that way.

Both attorneys cite a 1992 Supreme Court case ruling as part of their arguments. In that case, a group of teenagers allegedly constructed a crudely made cross and burned it in a black family’s backyard in St. Paul, Minn. The high court ruled it was unconstitutional to charge them with a bias-motivated crime ordinance.

In his motion, Muffoletto states: “No matter how distasteful, offensive or ignorant the speech may have been, the fundamental freedom of that speech prohibits Maryland’s punishment of that constitutional free speech.”

However, Thompson’s motion on behalf of Lipp notes that he’s “not suggesting he’s [Lipp] not willing to take responsibility for his actions.” He acknowledges that the alleged conduct of defacing school property with graffiti “could be punishable by malicious destruction.”

All four teens did not enter a plea on the misdemeanor charges during initial appearances throughout the summer.

A plea bargain has been made to Lipp but it was rejected, Thompson said.

It is not clear whether Curtiss has received a plea agreement. Both Lipp and Curtiss are expected to appear for motions hearings Dec. 18, with trials set in February and January, respectively.

Last month, two of the teens — Seth Taylor, 19, of Glenwood and Joshua Shaffer, 18, of Mount Airy — appeared in court where the potential of separate plea offers for them first surfaced publicly. Plea hearings are expected in late December.