Uploaded April 2024 | Updated September 2026, 3 hours ago
The recent decision of Willson v. 1st Judicial District (2024), created a substantial revision to the “Obstruction” charge that Jose “Chille” DeCastro was convicted of. This law was passed in 1911, and has no legislative history or appellate history. I criticized heavily this statute as overbroad and unconstitutional. The Appellate Court tried to rework the statute because it is that bad, and made it a “specific intent” crime (e.g., you had the intent to do it), and it only applies to “physical conduct” and “fighting words.” However, the Appellate Court stated that conduct that impedes, even if not physical, can still be deemed “obstruction.” We will review the bodycam, and Chille’s video and trial testimony, to see if there is enough evidence to conclude that Chille still violated the statute, as amended. The Appellate Court admits that the statute needed major revisions to prevent it from being unconstitutional. While it states that protected speech is not subject to this statute, it still leaves areas in dispute. I went through the evidence, and there looks to be sufficient grounds to uphold the conviction. The District Court will likely uphold the conviction, and it’s possible the Appellate Court for the Eighth District will revisit it and see if it can be clarified or changed further, and even so, at this stage, absent some good case authority, I see the conviction still standing.
Appellate Courts look for errors in the case. They don't weigh witness credibility. They look for mistakes that affected the trial, such as overruling an objection in error, or admitting incompetent evidence, etc. In the video that Chille took, he made several statements that could be interpreted as specific intent. I will go over those statements. The cop told Chille to come over to his car, and Chille twice say "No." That would be specific intent. Specific intent can be inferred or based upon Chille saying that the cop gave him "unlawful commands." Saying the commands were "unlawful" could make it look like he really intended to disobey them, which is willful. This bodycam coverage wasn't what was admitted at trial. It gave a better audio of what Chille was saying. The new changes in the law allow for insults and irritating the cop. The statute prohibits "fighting words" - those that never get constitutional protection and which tend to incite. However, in the right context, even protected speech can be obstructionist. The Appellate Court admitted that "physical conduct" could include passive aggressive acts, such as impeding an officer by "going limp." The Appellate Court admits that it cannot draft a statute that fits all situations.
They are on a short briefing schedule, which actually hurts Chille, as he has fewer pages to make his case, less time, and the same level of research. My prediction is that the District Court will uphold the conviction for obstruction. From there, Chille would need to file a writ and seek further appellate review. From my vantage point, and unless there is better authority out there that favors him, the conviction looks very difficult to overturn.
Shout out to Caphalea for putting together this great combination of videos. youtube.com/watch?v=RtA7-eFsGW8&t=373s
The recent decision of Willson v. 1st Judicial District (2024), created a substantial revision to the “Obstruction” charge that Jose “Chille” DeCastro was convicted of. This law was passed in 1911, and has no legislative history or appellate history. I criticized heavily this statute as overbroad and unconstitutional. The Appellate Court tried to rework the statute because it is that bad, and made it a “specific intent” crime (e.g., you had the intent to do it), and it only applies to “physical conduct” and “fighting words.” However, the Appellate Court stated that conduct that impedes, even if not physical, can still be deemed “obstruction.” We will review the bodycam, and Chille’s video and trial testimony, to see if there is enough evidence to conclude that Chille still violated the statute, as amended. The Appellate Court admits that the statute needed major revisions to prevent it from being unconstitutional. While it states that protected speech is not subject to this statute, it still leaves areas in dispute. I went through the evidence, and there looks to be sufficient grounds to uphold the conviction. The District Court will likely uphold the conviction, and it’s possible the Appellate Court for the Eighth District will revisit it and see if it can be clarified or changed further, and even so, at this stage, absent some good case authority, I see the conviction still standing.
Appellate Courts look for errors in the case. They don't weigh witness credibility. They look for mistakes that affected the trial, such as overruling an objection in error, or admitting incompetent evidence, etc. In the video that Chille took, he made several statements that could be interpreted as specific intent. I will go over those statements. The cop told Chille to come over to his car, and Chille twice say "No." That would be specific intent. Specific intent can be inferred or based upon Chille saying that the cop gave him "unlawful commands." Saying the commands were "unlawful" could make it look like he really intended to disobey them, which is willful. This bodycam coverage wasn't what was admitted at trial. It gave a better audio of what Chille was saying. The new changes in the law allow for insults and irritating the cop. The statute prohibits "fighting words" - those that never get constitutional protection and which tend to incite. However, in the right context, even protected speech can be obstructionist. The Appellate Court admitted that "physical conduct" could include passive aggressive acts, such as impeding an officer by "going limp." The Appellate Court admits that it cannot draft a statute that fits all situations.
They are on a short briefing schedule, which actually hurts Chille, as he has fewer pages to make his case, less time, and the same level of research. My prediction is that the District Court will uphold the conviction for obstruction. From there, Chille would need to file a writ and seek further appellate review. From my vantage point, and unless there is better authority out there that favors him, the conviction looks very difficult to overturn.
Shout out to Caphalea for putting together this great combination of videos. youtube.com/watch?v=RtA7-eFsGW8&t=373s
