The trial of Renea Gamble had been underway for almost two hours when Marcus McDowell, the city attorney of Fairhope, Alabama, called a surprise witness.
“I call the gentleman in the red shirt,” he said, pointing toward a long-haired man in the second row. It took a moment to realize that he was referring to Gamble’s husband, 63-year-old Larry Fletcher.
Gamble’s defense attorney objected. He’d received no advance notice. But Fletcher shrugged and made his way forward.
Fletcher was with his wife when she was arrested at a No Kings protest in October 2025. She was wearing a 7-foot-tall inflatable penis costume and holding a sign that read “No Dick Tator.” Video of the incident went viral, turning Gamble into a minor celebrity and local free speech icon. Most people assumed the city would eventually drop the misdemeanor charges filed against her. Instead, McDowell added more, including giving a false name to law enforcement for identifying herself as “Aunt Tifa.”
Fletcher wore black Levi’s and a collared shirt with a Ferrari logo – a nod to his work rebuilding fuel injection systems for high-end cars. Sitting in the front row, Gamble looked a bit stricken watching the man she’d known since her childhood in Baton Rouge. “I know what she was thinking,” Fletcher later said. “She’s like, ‘Oh man, this could go out of control real easy.’”
McDowell asked Fletcher if he’d gone to bail his wife out of jail after her arrest. Yes, Fletcher said.
Did he make any statements to any of the jailers? Fletcher wasn’t sure. McDowell motioned toward one of the many law enforcement officers standing on the side of the room and asked if he looked familiar. Fletcher said he’d seen him around.
McDowell cut to the chase: Did Fletcher remember telling this man that he had gone to get bail money the day before the protest?
His objective was suddenly clear: The city attorney was suggesting that Gamble had gotten arrested on purpose.
If this was meant as a gotcha, things didn’t go as intended.
“I always make sure I have bail money!” Fletcher replied emphatically, as if this should be the most obvious thing in the world.
Did he have bail money on him now?
“Yeah!” Fletcher exclaimed, then gestured broadly. “With this many cops around? Come on.”
The room erupted with laughter. Moments later, Fletcher was back in his seat. Gamble reached back and held his hand.
Okay this is great that she’s free and all, but can we stop for a second and think about what happened here? A woman was grabbed off the street, beaten and brutalized (I’ve seen the arrest footage), and ripped out of her life, while being 100% peaceful and obedient.
I’m so sick of the one-sided violence, while we’re told to obey and be peaceful and whatever else.
Why do you write this like it’s surprising. I’m so sick of the left acting like “WHY DID THEY BEAT US UP ARE YOU NOT SHOCKED LOOK AT ME I’M DISGUSTING”
How about figuring out a way to protest that doesn’t let them make these arrests so easy. The right figured out you can drive massive trucks into the streets to overwhelm the city’s ability to arrest people. If you mass arrest people they leave behind lots of vehicles and there’s only so many trucks that can remove them and only so much space in impound lots and this creates a situation that fucks the police over. The left on the other hand dresses in penis costumes and stands around until a cop kicks their head in. What the fuck are we doing
His objective was suddenly clear: The city attorney was suggesting that Gamble had gotten arrested on purpose.
Genuinely curious, what’s the angle here? It’s not illegal to intend to get arrested. Like, that was a defining thing of the civil rights movement.
The angle is that she knew she was “committing a crime”
Genuinely curious, what’s the angle here?
Fully upright I think?
“Your honor, the defendant clearly intended for me to illegally arrest her!”
To undermine her as a sympathetic victim. The city prosecutor was trying to head off the civil suit, so he’s trying to set it up like her action were intentional provocation. If it was all a devious plan to provoke the cops to get paid, then maybe the jury in that case would not award her any money.
Instead, it fell flat on it’s face immediately and made it clear just who the villains are. People carrying around bail money because the local cops are so unhinged is not a winning answer for him at all.
Seems like he’s implying that she was asking for it therefore she deserved to be arrested.
she was asking for it
Oh, so the penis costume was too short and too tight? Or it just gave the prosecutor an erection? /s
Such utter bullshit.
She was acquitted of all charges, including the trumped up extra ones the city attorney pulled out of his ass.
But my favorite bit was this:
Snedeker said he was not 99.9% certain that Gamble should be convicted of crimes stemming from the actions that led to her arrest. She was found not guilty of misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, as well as a municipal violation for disturbing the peace and giving a false name to law enforcement.
I’m betting he was 100% sure that she was going to appeal if he found her guilty of anything and that he would be made to look like a goddamn fool by the appeals court who would read this and call his ass out. And you know that everybody
inand his mother would send money to her to fund her appeal if it got to that.And you know that everybody in his mother would send money
Um… Did you by any chance use automated dictation to write your comment?
Dick Tation you say?
Her lawyer: Dick Johnson
LoL, yeah. 😅
Actually we started a line to get in, you can cutsies behind me if ya want
I’ll get behind you.
Bup-bup-bup-bup
I definitely heard a record scratch and forgot the rest of the comment when I hit that. Not exactly an innocent “for all intensive purposes.”
most people refer to them motherfuckers
His way is decidedly Freudian.
This lady is my goddam fucking hero and I want to learn at her feet.
Turns out her husband is pretty fucking awesome, too!
The whole family seems totally rad. I am inspired.
WE LOVE YOU AUNTY TIFA
I need someone who understands law better than myself to clarify here – not only did the prosecutor call a witness not on the list, but that witness was the spouse of the defendant?? I realize this is Alabama, and I may be a caveman lawyer (#notalawyer #notyourlawyer), but isn’t this wildly inadmissable? If this story is true, shouldn’t Cracker Jack lose their legal degree accreditation, because that seems to be where these participants got theirs? Or do l need to return to my cave?
I believe that the prosecution cannot call witnesses not on the list, but that the defense has more leeway?
I was thinking the same thing. Seems like that city attorney has taken a big ol’soak in a tub of reputational harm.
He can probably expect a promotion to the Trump administration any day now though. They seem to revel in hiring incompetent lawyers.
I’m pretty sure they’re still looking for a permanent replacement for Pam Bondi. He should submit his resume!
Job requirements:
- Kiss Trump’s ass at every opportunity.
- Constantly have a milk-curdled miserable expression on your face.
- Throw personal insults at Congress members whenever pulled into hearings.
- Shout about the DOW at every opportunity.
- Be completely inept at your job.
Constantly have a milk-curdled miserable expression on your face.
She really did look like she was weaned on a pickle, didn’t she?
Long read here, but the story illustrates how the city attorney was scrambling less just to convict her than preempt a lawsuit she’s likely to file against the city. Doesn’t directly answer your question, but the context makes this clear that there were some desperation moves here.
Municipal court has slightly different rules, I think. At any rate, the defense objected and that would make it appeal-able post-conviction.
I mean, this court is set up for you to argue with the traffic cop as to how fast you were going. Calling witnesses usually isn’t a part of it.
My understanding is that calling someone not in the list is rare but not completely disallowed. You’d need some heavy justification and how the other side doesn’t object with better justification. I didn’t read the pay-walled article but the summary in the post made it seem very lackadaisical how it was handled. That would be very concerning.
As I understand it, litigators have pretty wide latitude to call whomever they want to provide factual testimony in support of their case. At worst, in some jurisdictions the opposing council has a right to be prepared and can ask for a recess while they do so.
And AFAIK states that grant spousal privilege limit that to private conservations, not overt acts or utterances made to a third party.
Typically you can invoke your 5th amendment right for spouses as well but you don’t have to.
The dirty pigs tried to intimidate her in the courtroom, too:
The trial took place at the Fairhope Civic Center, home to the city council chamber and — on the first and third Wednesday of every month — municipal court. Outside the building, dozens of people gathered to support Gamble, while a small army of cops stood watch from inside.
Dude-bro really thought he was the morality police. Fuckin’ scumbag.
[…] In his body camera footage, Babb repeatedly scolds Gamble for the costume, demanding to know how she would explain it to his kids. “I’m not trying to violate your freedom of speech,” he says as he unzips the penis suit. “I’m trying to preserve a town that has values.” Now McDowell was conjuring an alternate reality in which Gamble had teetered precariously at the edge of the road, endangering motorists, while the protest itself was veering close to a riot.
“I’m not trying to violate your free speech” is not a magic phrase to to turn infringements on free speech into non-infringements.
“I’m not racist, but…”
He wasn’t trying, he was succeeding.
“I’m effortlessly violating your free speech”
Sigh
*unzips the penis suit*
If “I’m not trying to violate your first amendment rights” works, then shouting “I’m not trying to assault a police officer or resist arrest!” Whilst doing both those things should let you off the hook. Lmao
(Sigh) Yadda-yadda it’s just more of the same “…protects but does not bind, binds but does not protect” in action…SSDD…
Yeah they lied and said she was a traffic hazard, that it had nothing to do with the costume. They lied about calling for backup. They lied about escalating the situation. They threw her to the ground and squeezed the cuffs on her (arthritic) hands tightly so she cried out. She’s an ASL interpreter, her hands are her business.
I hope she sues the fuck out of them.
how she would explain it to his kids
It’s a play on words. Dick-Tator. Get it?
Same energy as “No offense but [extremely offensive thing]”
Do these stupid fucks really think kids don’t know what a penis is? Roughly half of humans have one!
“Dick is another name for penis” is not a difficult explanation lmao
penis
“But that’s a shameful no-no thing we pretend doesn’t exist :(”
–Alabama, probably.
Isn’t the joke that every girl there has more than passing familiarity with their brother’s or father’s?
I wonder how this cop would explain to his kids why he was trying to undress a woman in broad daylight- a woman he didn’t person know.
“You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”
Or losing your job, your home, your health, and various other consequences of being in jail.
Aunt Tifa :)
i hope they give her an award, she’s fabulous.
She could really start a t-shirt business to fund more protests.
“I support Aunt Tifa”
This story continues to entertain. I’m so glad this nation is really concentrating on the important things. Hilarious.
When you graduate dead last at a third tier law school, you end up as a prosecutor in HeeHaw, Alabama.
and trying to prosecute mee-maw.
who’s dressed as a pee-pee
So, what is an appropriate amount of cash to have on hand for bail for this sort of thing? (Asking for a friend.)
Ironically it’s also the amount that makes possession of cash suspicious and subject to seizure.
It’s called “Civil Forfeiture” which is legalese for “literally legalized highway robbery.”
“Snedeker said that while he believed that police had probable cause to arrest Gamble, the city’s evidence was not strong enough to convict; Gamble was not guilty. The room broke into applause.”
Free willy!
The full monty!
There was a story Abe Lincoln used to tell on the wisdom of a lawyer never asking a question he didn’t already know the answer to.
“Did you see Mr. Smith bite off Mr. Jones’ ear in the fight?”
“No, I did not see it happen.”
“Then why did you say he had bitten off the ear?”
“Because I saw him spit it out.”
deleted by creator
