KILGORE HOPES VIRGINIA COURT CASES HAVE NATIONAL IMPACT

Kilgore discussed those two visits and what effect he hopes they have
on the judicial process for years to come during a recent meeting with
the Kingsport Times-News Editorial Board.

The first journey to the nation's highest court came when a decision
was delivered in April regarding an argument Kilgore brought before
the court calling the burning of a cross an intimidation of a person
instead of expressing someone's right to free speech.

Justice Clarence Thomas was quoted as saying the burning of a cross
was the equivalent of "homeland terrorism.''

The law against cross burning, which had been in effect in Virginia
for 50 years, was upheld by the court after being struck down in the
Virginia Supreme Court in 2002.

"People who are burning crosses are burning them to intimidate other
people. Burning a cross is much more than exercising free speech,''
Kilgore said during the session.

The Virginia statute bans cross burning with the intent to intimidate
anyone for any reason, with no regard to race, ethnicity, religion or
other characteristics.

Although Kilgore calls the first ruling "a major triumph,'' he said
his second visit to the court in June is the ruling that controls
ingress and egress in public housing projects.

The case revolved around the Whitcomb Court housing project in
Richmond, which Kilgore said was plagued by drugs, shootings and other
crimes.

The attorney general argued in an initial visit to the court in April
that residents of public housing projects should enjoy the same
protections from crime as residents of private apartment complexes.

In this case involving Whitcomb Court, the majority of crime taking
place on its premises was being instigated by individuals who were not
residents of the housing project.

The Richmond City Council voted in 1997 to deed the streets of
Whitcomb Court to the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority so
that "the streets there would be treated the same way as they would be
treated in a private apartment complex,'' Kilgore said.

An individual who had pleaded guilty to trespassing on the apartment
complex grounds earlier had been warned in writing not to return to
the apartments by the authority, but he subsequently returned twice
and was arrested.

The individual claimed that his right of free speech was violated when
he was arrested.

"This is going to be very important to the future of public housing in
this nation,'' said Kilgore.

"The Supreme Court finally said that you can close off these public
streets and require people to having a purpose (for coming onto public
housing property). It allows those folks to control the riffraff
coming in and out.

"I think I knew it was going our way when Justice (Ruth) Ginsberg said
'poor people don't have the right to gated communities.' We can't say
just because you live in public housing that you don't have the right
to take the same action you would if you were living in a private
complex or a wealthy community.''

The individual who says his rights were violated lacked an alibi,
Kilgore said.

"He said on the night he was arrested that he was delivering diapers,
which made it a sadder story for the Supreme Court. But we had a
history of assaults, drug dealing, and on and on the number of
problems he had caused,'' he said.

"With this law being defended successfully and our new anti-gang task
force being formed, we hope that this will encourage public housing
authorities in Virginia to take back their neighborhoods.''