Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. George Harris Patterson, III

TENNCRIMAPPMarch 11, 2026No. M2024-01608-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Timothy L. Easter
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Criminal appeal from trial court conviction; appellate court affirmed judgments

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Defendant George Harris Patterson, III was acquitted of resisting arrest but convicted of disorderly conduct and assault on a first responder. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments, rejecting his challenges to sufficiency of evidence, constitutionality of the disorderly conduct statute, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and cumulative error claims.

Excerpt

Defendant, George Harris Patterson, III, who was described at oral argument as a First Amendment Auditor, was indicted for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and assault on a first responder after an incident at a Davidson County Post Office. A jury found Defendant not guilty of resisting arrest but guilty of disorderly conduct and assault. Defendant appeals, raising several issues. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of the disorderly conduct statute under the First Amendment as applied to him, the trial court's failure to give a special jury instruction, the trial court's admission of a piece of evidence and testimony from a postal employee, and the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial. He also insists he is entitled to cumulative error relief. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** George Harris Patterson, III, described as a "First Amendment Auditor" (someone who tests free speech rights by filming in public places), was charged with criminal offenses after an incident at a Davidson County Post Office. He was accused of resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and assaulting a first responder. A jury found him not guilty of resisting arrest but guilty of the other two charges. Patterson appealed the convictions. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court upheld Patterson's convictions for disorderly conduct and assault on a first responder. The court rejected all of Patterson's arguments, including his claims that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, that the disorderly conduct law violated his constitutional rights, and that the jury received improper instructions. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows the limits of First Amendment protections in workplace settings, particularly government buildings like post offices. While people have rights to film and speak in public spaces, those rights have boundaries. Workers should understand that even when exercising free speech rights, they can still face criminal charges if their conduct becomes disruptive or involves physical contact with law enforcement or other officials.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.