March 2, 1997
Column 14
It looks like the circus has come back to Los Angeles. The OJ trial has now started again. Here I was under the impression that he was acquitted in a trial once. I guess that double jeopardy isn't just a part in the TV game show.
I think that in the last one, I had been talking about how the
juries in a death penalty trial are selected and the trial in
general. I talked about how most young people are excused for
hardship reasons, i.e., they would lose their job, or would fall
behind in their schooling, so most of the jurors are retired, and
usually older people. I'm not telling you anything new when I say
that older people usually have strong opinions and tend to be
less open minded about things. They are also more likely to
believe that the prosecutor and the courts would never put a
person on trial unless they were guilty.
I ended the last column talking about how the protection that
a person on trial has, have been whittled away at over the past
thirty years or so. Yes, there is the occasional person who slips
by, but then you are led to believe that this is the case for
every person on trial. As a result of chipping away at these
protections over the past three decades, the protections for the
person on trial are only a bare skeleton of what they are
supposed to be . . . or the original intent has been stripped
down so much that it is ineffective. So when you hear someone on
TV ranting and raving about all the rights of defendants, you
should look a little closer. Maybe ask what rights exactly. I
think that these people tend to confuse rights with basic
fairness. But the next time you hear someone ranting about the
rights of the defendant, try to pin them down on what exactly
they are talking about. I seriously doubt if you'll pin them down
on anything specific . . . just a vagueness about how the system
only cares about the rights of the defendants. But it seems to be
effective for the victims' rights groups and it gets the
politicians votes. I guess that fear is an effective way to herd
sheep.
With all of these protections for the defendant having been
eroded over time, the chances of a person being wrongly convicted
goes up in direct proportion to the modification of the laws and
rules of court. So, this brings up an interesting question. When
an innocent person is executed and it is later proved to be a
fact that this person was executed, even though innocent, should
the people who are responsible for this happening also be
executed, or sent to prison for murder? There have been a number
of cases where this has happened recently. It was ironic that the
prosecutor still wouldn't admit guilt in stealing the life of at
least four men. Instead, just an "OOOOPS" was
all that was heard. I'll bet the same prosecutor would have been
strutting around at the execution like he was a hero of some
sort, if the truth hadn't come out. It was only a grudgingly
given"OOOOPS" at that.
I suppose the point that I was trying to make (albeit, a bit
clumsily) is that a death penalty trial is not like you see on
TV. The defense doesn't have the freedom to produce last minute
evidence that will win the case, nor is the defendant hiding
behind laws that favor and coddle him. The defense has to share
the evidence with the prosecutor so the prosecutor can find a way
to counter it, and there is no such thing as surprise witnesses
to save the day for the defendant. One other thing that people
don't seem to realize is that the judge has to approve of the
defense that the defendant's lawyers will present to the jury.
So, the whole process is closely orchestrated and there is very
little freedom in the lawyer's defense. At least, it is like this
here in California. I doubt if it is much different in the other
states. They all tend to have the same basic procedures.
One thing that people don't hear about much is the defendants
that do not have representation by an attorney, but instead they
will act as their own attorney. This is a defendant that is
Propria Persona, or Pro Per. I think it is an interesting
phenomena and will talk about it some more in the future.
I want to thank those of you who have written letters of
support, they are appreciated. Feel free to write with questions
or comments. As I stated in an earlier column, if you wrote to me
at the other site, I won't get your letter and so you should
write to me here. I will try to reply to everyone that writes
unless it is a letter full of venom. So, until the next time.
Later,
Dean