Mistrial in Court Scuffle Case

VAN NUYS —  Jurors could not agree Friday whether a defense attorney committed a misdemeanor or free speech when he cursed a court bailiff and challenged him to fight.

Daniel Thor Hustwit, 31, who faced up to 90 days in jail if convicted, claimed victory as a judge declared a mistrial and prosecutors announced it was doubtful the case would be retried.

Sporting a ponytail, goatee and gold hoop earring, Hustwit said he was a victim of a “selective prosecution” based on “publicity,” and called the case “a victory for the Constitution.”

City Atty. James Hahn defended the prosecution, which cost $50,000 for the 10-day trial, but appeared to give up on further legal action.

Several of the jurors, who split 8 to 4 in favor of acquittal, criticized the charges.

“It was a waste of taxpayers’ time and money,” said juror Pauline Summers of Van Nuys. “Everyone involved could have settled it with a handshake.”

The four-man, seven-woman jury, which included a deputy district attorney who handles arraignments at the Culver City Municipal Courthouse, failed to reach verdicts after less than a day of deliberation.

“This was a pathetic abuse of discretion,” Hustwit said of the city attorney’s decision to try him. “It was strictly verbal conduct.”

Hustwit had prevailed over prosecutors last March 14 in winning a lighter sentence for a client, a perjury defendant, after a contentious three-strikes hearing in Van Nuys Superior Court.

Hustwit admitted that he had called the prosecutor and bailiff Mike Ascolese “asses.” But he denied he wanted to fight when he told Ascolese, “If you want a piece of me, take off your gun and badge and let’s go outside.”

Hustwit’s lawyer, Charles Kelly Kilgore, argued his client used “words that were not criminal,” and used shocking language to make the point.

“Your daughter, she’s a slut,” Kilgore said, pointing to one juror during closing arguments. “Does anybody think that at that point in time, you have a right to push that person away or slap that person?”

A female juror said afterward the argument angered some fellow panelists, including one man who suggested that Hustwit should be disbarred.

But she said, “It was his actions, not his words. Mr. Hustwit didn’t raise a fist or make other nonverbal actions.”

Hahn disagreed.

“Clearly the evidence from the arrest report establishes he [Hustwit] challenged him [the bailiff] to a fight,” Hahn said. “The whole purpose of the disturbing the peace statute is to preserve the peace. We don’t want people challenging each other to fights.”

Hustwit testified he was only reacting emotionally to disrespectful remarks by the bailiff in the presence of the defendant’s family members.

Hustwit admitted he used profanity and called the bailiff and prosecutors “asses” at least 25 times.

The lawyer was originally charged with “using offensive words in a public place inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.” Those charges were reduced last week.

Despite questions about the cost of prosecuting the case, at least one legal expert believed it was worth the price and said the State Bar of California should look into Hustwit’s conduct.

“I think there was merit in bringing the action, even if it cost $50,000,” said Robert Pugsley, a professor of criminal law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles. “One of the perceptions of lawyers by the general public is that they are rude, arrogant and uncivil. This case demonstrated those qualities.”

“It’s important the public can see that at least one part of the legal system is attempting to enforce standards of civility against those who abuse them,” Pugsley said.

Juror Pauline Summers disagreed.

“I don’t think it’s different from things I’ve heard in the workplace,” Summers said.