Incarcerated For Threatening Police, Joe Grits Seeks Release Pending Appeal

Joe Grits, serving time, seeks release on appeal.

In July, content creator Joseph “Joe Grits” Thompson  was sentenced to three years in prison by a state judge following his conviction for posting social media threats against a police officer involving the shooting death of his friend Dyshan Best.

One caption declared “somebody gotta die, somebody should die with a badge on.”

Connecticut’s inspector general found that the fatal shooting was justified because Best brandished a gun as he ran from police after a traffic stop.

At trial Grits opted to defend himself rather than securing a defense attorney or the pro bono work of a public defender to mitigate prison exposure. During sentencing the judge ordered Grits’s immediate incarceration rather than keeping him out on appeal.

Now in prison, Grits has retained the services of defense attorney Alexander Taubes who provided an update about his client’s legal status on Facebook.

Today the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the manslaughter conviction of Robert Fisher, an 80-year-old former Litchfield lawyer.

Why? Because while his trial was underway, the judge presiding over it had a pending application to become Inspector General — a supervisory prosecutor position inside the very agency, the Division of Criminal Justice, that was prosecuting him. He didn’t disclose it until well after the guilty verdict. The Appellate Court held that his impartiality could reasonably be questioned, and threw the conviction out.

But here is the tragedy buried in this story: Mr. Fisher was sentenced to two and a half years, no appeal bond was granted, and he has been sitting in prison ever since — while the appeal that just vindicated him slowly worked its way through the system. He “won.” And no court on earth can give him back the time he already served on a conviction that never should have stood. If the appeal had taken just a little longer, he would have finished his entire sentence before anyone ever ruled on it.

I know this tragedy up close, because my client Joseph “Joe Grits” Thompson is living it right now. On July 27, Joe was sentenced in Bridgeport to an effective three years to serve — for social media posts that we contend are protected political and artistic expression under the First Amendment. We asked that he remain free while the appellate courts decide whether his conviction can stand. The court said no, from the bench. We have now taken the fight to the Appellate Court, petitioning for his release pending appeal.

Appeals take time — often a year or two, sometimes more. With a three-year sentence, a person can serve most or all of their time before any court ever decides whether the conviction was lawful in the first place. An appeal you can only win after the punishment is complete is not a right. It’s a meaningless formality. This treatment of appeal bonds emerging in Connecticut is an insult to anyone who cares about the integrity of our judicial process and our legal heritage.

Connecticut needs a rebuttable presumption of appellate bonds in lower-sentence cases. We should amend the Practice Book. If the sentence is short and the appeal is taken in good faith, release should be the default — unless the State can prove the person is a danger or a flight risk with real evidence. The current system is wrong and unjust.

Robert Fisher’s reversal should be a warning to all of us. And Joe Grits should be home while his appeal is heard.