William Burkert

Go to Database Search Page

Go to Database Index Page

Charge:	Harassment criminal (incl. Aggravated)
Sentence:	Fine
Years Imprisoned:
Year Crime:	2011
Year Convicted:	2014
Year Cleared:	2016
U.S. State or Country of Crime:	New Jersey
County or Region of Crime:	Union
City of Crime:	Elizabeth
Result:	Judicially Exonerated
Summary of Case:	"William Burkert was wrongly convicted on June 20, 2014 of criminal harassment for making copies of a co-worker's wedding photographs and adding vulgar comments for others to see. At the time Burkert was a Union County Jail correctional officer and the photos were of his sergeant's wedding. During his bench trial in the Elizabeth Municipal Court, the sergeant's lawyer was the State's prosecutor. Burkett's defense was the flyers were not intended to harass the Sergeant, and that as a a matter of law the written comments were protected speech and could not constitute criminal harassment because they were not specifically directed to the Sergeant. After his conviction following a three-day trial, Burkert was fined. Burkert appealed his conviction, arguing his actions were speech protected by the First Amendment. On March 18, 2016 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reversed Burkert's conviction. The Court's ruling stated in part: "Speech is often 'abusive' — even vulgar, derisive, and provocative — and yet it is still protected under the . . .Federal constitutional guarantees of free expression unless it is much more than that . . . . [b]ut unless speech presents a clear and present danger of some serious substantive evil, it may neither be forbidden nor penalized." ... "It is now clear that words must do more than offend, cause indignation or anger the addressee to lose the protection of the First Amendment." Defendant's comments were unprofessional, puerile, and inappropriate for the workplace. Our opinion does not address whether the nature of defendant's written comments, which were posted in his workplace, may subject him to discipline by his employer. However, they do not amount to criminal harassment." (State v. Burkert, No. A-5103-13T3 (Superior Ct. of NJ, Appellate Div., 3-18-2016)"
Conviction Caused By:
Innocence Proved By:	"On March 18, 2016 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reversed Burkert's conviction. The Court's ruling stated in part: "Speech is often 'abusive' — even vulgar, derisive, and provocative — and yet it is still protected under the . . .Federal constitutional guarantees of free expression unless it is much more than that . . . . [b]ut unless speech presents a clear and present danger of some serious substantive evil, it may neither be forbidden nor penalized." ... "It is now clear that words must do more than offend, cause indignation or anger the addressee to lose the protection of the First Amendment." Defendant's comments were unprofessional, puerile, and inappropriate for the workplace. Our opinion does not address whether the nature of defendant's written comments, which were posted in his workplace, may subject him to discipline by his employer. However, they do not amount to criminal harassment." (State v. Burkert, No. A-5103-13T3 (Superior Ct. of NJ, Appellate Div., 3-18-2016)"
Defendant Aided By:
Compensation Awarded:
Was Perpetrator Identified?
Age When Imprisoned:
Age When Released:
Sex:	Male
Skin/Ethnicity:
Information Source 1:	"State of New Jersey v. William Burkert, No. A-5103-13T3 (Superior Ct. of NJ, Appellate Div., 3-18-2016) (Reversing conviction on basis that Burkert's actions were constitutionally protected expressions of speech.)"
Information Location 1:	http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5103-13.pdf
Information Source 2:	"Cop's flyers mocking his sergeant were free speech, court says, By Tom Haydon (NJ Advance Media for NJ.com), NJ.com, March 21, 2016"
Information Location 2:	http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2016/03/court_throws_out_county_officers_conviction_for_ha.html
Information Source 3:
Information Location 3:
Information Source 4:
Information Location 4:
Information Source 5:
Information Location 5:
Book About Case:
Book Information:
Book About Case (2):
Book Information (2):
Movie About Case:
Comments About Case:

Go to Database Search Page

Go to Database Index Page

William Burkert

Charge:

Harassment criminal (incl. Aggravated)

Sentence:

Fine

Years Imprisoned:

Year Crime:

2011

Year Convicted:

2014

Year Cleared:

2016

U.S. State or Country of Crime:

New Jersey

County or Region of Crime:

Union

City of Crime:

Elizabeth

Result:

Judicially Exonerated

Summary of Case:

Conviction Caused By:

Innocence Proved By:

Defendant Aided By:

Compensation Awarded:

Was Perpetrator Identified?

Age When Imprisoned:

Age When Released:

Sex:

Male

Skin/Ethnicity:

Information Source 1:

"State of New Jersey v. William Burkert, No. A-5103-13T3 (Superior Ct. of NJ, Appellate Div., 3-18-2016) (Reversing conviction on basis that Burkert's actions were constitutionally protected expressions of speech.)"

Information Location 1:

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5103-13.pdf

Information Source 2:

"Cop's flyers mocking his sergeant were free speech, court says, By Tom Haydon (NJ Advance Media for NJ.com), NJ.com, March 21, 2016"

Information Location 2:

http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2016/03/court_throws_out_county_officers_conviction_for_ha.html

Information Source 3:

Information Location 3:

Information Source 4:

Information Location 4:

Information Source 5:

Information Location 5:

Book About Case:

Book Information:

Book About Case (2):

Book Information (2):

Movie About Case:

Comments About Case: