On March 20, 2003, ten people were arrested in Rep. Virgil Goode's office for sitting-in to protest his support for the war on Iraq. Eight of them were tried in Charlottesville District Court on Friday, April 25. Attempts by these defendents to introduce personal statements were met with objections by the Commonwealth's Attorney, which were upheld by the judge, William G. Barkley. We invited Ed Wayland, defending the eight, to comment on the issue:

"By Virginia law, a defendant in a criminal case has the right to make a statement to the court before sentencing. Judge Barkley ruled, correctly, that the statement must be relevant to the case. He then ruled that statements of political views or philosophy were not relevant, because they could not be permitted to play a role in his final decision. Since he was not going to rule on whether the Iraq war was or was not a good thing, and since his personal views on that were not relevant and should not play a role in determining the sentence that should be imposed on these defendants, anything they said about the war was irrelevant. As a result, he refused to let them talk about their views on the war.

I have known Judge Barkley for many years and I respect him as a judge. I disagree with him on this one, however. Defendants who have been found guilty have the right to speak to a court before they are sentenced. Statements which explain why someone committed a criminal act are clearly the sort of statements that a defendant ought to be able to make, even if those statements include information about political or philosophical views. Even if some of the information contained in such a statement is not relevant, other information is useful to the person who will do the sentencing. At the least, this includes information about the defendant's state of mind, his or her sincerity, and whether the impulse to act came out of a desire to harm or to help. A defendant should be allowed to make a statement which demonstrates these things.

Judge Barkley was right to make the point that the sentence imposed should not be based on whether the judge agrees with the defendant's political views. But I think he was wrong to cut the defendants off and not let them give whatever explanation they wished to offer about why they did the things they did. ” (Ed Wayland, Electronic Mail, April 25, 2003)