Murder Trial Venue Fair?
Posted: Tuesday, March 09, 2010
by Jack H. Schick
The United States has the best judicial system in the world. I firmly believe that. Sometimes, however, it seems completely inexplicable. I suppose that's why we have so many lawyers. We profess 'Blind Justice'. Our symbol balances her scales of evidence with a blindfold on. We seek the Truth, the whole Truth, and issue decisions that promote justice. I've been reading about a murder case around here, though. It's given me some doubts.
A businessman's nephew planned to rob him. He got a bunch of his buddies together to perpetrate a home invasion. There were seven people involved in the crime. While searching the house for the loot stash and terrorizing his wife, they tied the uncle to a chair and duct taped his face to keep him quiet. The man suffocated. The criminals got minimal loot for their well organized efforts.
They were caught. The three culprits who entered the house were tried last month. All plead "not guilty". The other four involved testified against them to receive lesser charges. Two were convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. One was acquitted because there was no DNA evidence that he was actually in the house, and because his confession to the crime was elicited in an "off the record" interview. It could not be admitted as evidence.
One of the other four is coming up for trial now. He (allegedly), participated in the planning then acted as "cleanup man". The lawyer for the individual is asking that the trial be moved out of the area, or that jurors be gotten from another county. He claims that local news reports preclude a "fair" trial. Since it was reported that the acquitted man actually confessed, the lawyer is afraid jurors in his client's case will be more likely to find him guilty so they "don't make the same mistake", the previous jury did.
"A potential juror who has read these articles will be more likely to convict and less likely to be fair and impartial rather than risk the acquittal of another of these defendants," said the Defense attorney. The man has pleaded 'not guilty,' of course. He was "compelled to testify" in the previous case or would be charged with contempt of court. He was given limited' immunity. His statements cannot be used against him.
It seems to me, the argument is that this man deserves as much of an opportunity to get away with it' as the last guy did. It seems that Truth and Justice has nothing to do with it. It's a question of theatrics. Who can be the most persuasive? Can the Defense preclude enough evidence and muddy the waters enough to confuse the jurors about what the truth is? Can the details of U.S. Law be manipulated enough so that the Truth exposed in the court room is not the whole, damning Truth but just enough for it to be "fair?"
"Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes', and your 'No' mean 'No'. Anything more is from the evil one." Matthew 5:37
This Article has been viewed 205 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.