Documentary examines Juggalo Gang Allegations by DOJ
But maybe that’s part of the point.
The fact that I felt compelled to comment on Joseph Bruce and Joseph Utsler’s face paint speaks volumes about how appearances can prejudice. The point is that it’s not just about the clown face paint. ICP, or Insane Clown Posse is the alternative hip-hop group formed by Joseph Bruce and Joseph Utsler. Amazon Prime is now streaming the film. The film is available on Amazon Prime. Juggalos do not only embrace the hatred directed at ICP music, but they also make it the “soundtrack of [their] lives,” according the group. Band merchandise is also available, such as T-shirts and beanie hats. If it can happen to Juggalos…
The choice to associate is a big one for Juggalos. ICP’s music, to put it mildly, is not well-received by critics. The musicians and their fans appear to be praising ICP’s notoriously bad music in a self-deprecating way. They describe being fired by their employers after they discovered their musical preference. One fan explains how he was denied custody of his son because a room in his home houses ICP memorabilia. One fan explains being denied custody of his son because a room in his home houses his ICP memorabilia.
This leads to the heart of the film’s discussion: How and why has the FBI labeled ICP and their fans a street gang?
“If this happened to a band that America liked, the country would be up in arms,” the group notes.
We learn that the FBI operates from a national definition of what constitutes a street gang, and they believe ICP fits the bill. According to the film, the FBI based its conclusion on isolated incidents involving individuals who identify as Juggalos. I’ve dealt before with the Department of Justice, gangs, but never a Juggalo.
First Amendment concerns
The group fights back with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. ICP and a few Juggalos filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the FBI’s classification of the musical group fans as a criminal organization. A Detroit federal judge dismissed the suit after six months on the grounds that the government did not believe the plaintiffs had standing. They argued that any harm inflicted upon the fans was inflicted by third parties, such as local law enforcement.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The film audience hears portions of the appellate arguments during which government attorneys argue that the gang designation is simply information the FBI provides local law enforcement agencies to use as they see fit.
Regardless, the trial court’s decision is reversed, and the case is remanded back.
Upon remand, the government again moves for a dismissal, and the trial court again grants their motion. The case is again appealed, but this time the dismissal of the case is upheld. The appellate court reasoned that since law enforcement isn’t forced to act on the FBI’s gang designation, the FBI isn’t responsible under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Undeterred, the Juggalos march on Washington, D.C., on Sept. 16, 2017, complete with an ICP concert at the Lincoln Memorial. They aren’t happy with the final decision, but they know their fight was on behalf of something bigger than just ICP.
After all, as one of the ACLU attorneys featured in the film commented, “If the government can target a group of people based on their musical tastes, they can target a group of people based on anything at all.”
What is ‘gang evidence,’ and how does it work?
The United States of Insanity ends on a mostly positive note: Even though the Juggalos lost their court battle against the FBI, they raised public concern for their cause while shedding light on some problematic interpretations of what constitutes a “gang.”
As discussed earlier, the FBI uses a national definition with set criteria as to when that label is appropriate, including the following:
* The group has three or more members, generally aged 12-24.
* Members share an identity, typically linked to a name, and often other symbols.
* Members view themselves as a gang, and they are recognized by others as a gang.
* The group has some permanence and a degree of organization.
* The group is involved in an elevated level of criminal activity.
Furthermore, in the federal criminal system, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 created punishment enhancements of up to 10 years for members of criminal street gangs who commit certain crimes.
In my home state of Oklahoma, we have a few gang-related statutes. For instance, “
ny person who attempts or commits a gang-related offense” either as a condition of membership or while in association with any gang or gang member “shall be guilty of a felony offense.” That felony is punishable by up to five years in addition to any other penalty imposed.
Additionally, prosecutors often try to employ “gang” evidence in their cases. I’ve seen many offer it as res gestae in the matter, arguing the evidence is necessary to give the jury a complete understanding of the crime.
Really, though, it’s usually just a bold-faced attempt to offer propensity evidence to prejudice the jury against the defendant. In that vein, prosecutors will often result to arguing FRCP 404 or the state equivalent–which allows otherwise prohibited propensity evidence–in hopes of proving the proffered gang evidence will show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or lack of accident.
Don’t get me wrong: Gangs are real. They can be dangerous. But as The United States of Insanity shows, an affiliation with a group, even one the government labels as a “gang,” isn’t a person’s only defining characteristic.
It’s foolish to say that every action they take is in conformity with, mandated by or in furtherance of the group.[a]Adam Banner
Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice is devoted to state and federal criminal law. The study of law may not be for everyone, but its practice and procedures seem to be permeating pop culture at a growing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.
This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal–or the American Bar Association.
