Smith Refused To Say What Happened

POSTED: 10:47 a.m. CST December 11, 2002 UPDATED: 10:57 a.m. CST December 11, 2002

ST. LOUIS -- Moments after being acquitted of charges she urinated in a City Hall trash can during a floor debate over redistricting, St. Louis Alderwoman Irene Smith voiced relief.

But Smith, a Democratic lawyer who once served as the St. Louis County counselor and chief judge of the city courts, wouldn't say exactly what she did -- or didn't do -- behind the sheets, maps and other things that supporters draped around her that day in July 2001.

"Whatever it was, I cannot say," Smith said after jurors deliberated just 25 minutes before acquitting her of a misdemeanor violation of the city code barring lewd conduct. "What happened behind the sheets and the curtains is really secondary. What is important and should be important as the city moves forward is addressing the racial divide" in St. Louis.

"I'm somewhat saddened it had to come to this point," she added.

Saying Smith "shamed herself and embarrassed the city," City Counselor Patti Hageman said "for the sake of the city, let's hope in the future that she finds a better way to express herself."

In what became fodder for tabloid-like headlines, Smith was accused of urinating during a filibuster against a ward redistricting bill she opposed on grounds it would pare the number of black aldermen.

At that time, the board's presiding officer ruled that Smith would lose control of floor debate if she left to use a restroom, so she appeared to do it right then and there, concealed by supporters and any fabrics or items they could grab.

Smith, who has said "what I did behind that tablecloth is my business," said after Tuesday's acquittal that "the idea was not to disrupt the meeting; the idea was to kill the bill."

If convicted, Smith could have faced up to 90 days in jail and $500 in fines, though jail time would be unusual for such an offense.

Before the trial, Smith called the charge "very bogus" and said she was eager to see how the city satisfied its burden of proving she did anything wrong -- when apparently no one knew specifically whether she actually urinated.

During the trial, Associate Circuit Judge Iris Ferguson barred the city from showing jurors a videotape of the incident, ruling that the city was unable to show conclusively that the tape had not been edited.

After Tuesday's verdict, juror Scott Ferranto said that while he believed Smith did urinate, the lack of supporting evidence left him voting for the acquittal. Having the chance to see the videotape, he said, may have swayed his decision.

Countered Smith: "I would give him a gold star. He's entitled to believe whatever he believes, but he was man enough to follow the law."

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2002

Answers

a lot of money and time was pissed away to bring you this story.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2002