From: cwt@mitre.org (Carl Traber)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The NYPD situation (was: Say it ain't so)
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:01:07 GMT
	<1992Dec28.231636.1349@bony1.bony.com>
	<RLK.93Jan2151152@underprize.think.com>
	<1993Jan7.022407.13776@bony1.bony.com>
Organization: Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA.

jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

[snip]

   Not only was Nelson deserving of a fair trial, it was the
   responsibility of society to give him one.  The "show" trial that
   acquitted him in spite of the evidence is a shame to us all.

I'll not deny the possibility of show trials -- Nazi Germany and
Colonial-era America incidents prove they can happen.  But, IMHO,
a bigger factor is that the jury system protects too many vital societal
needs; even the possibility of the occasional jury violating its oaths
is a small price to pay to prevent and/or reduce the incidents of runaway
governmental acts and excessive prosecutorial zeal.

Yes, mistakes happen.  I believe that the prosecutor in the attempted
murder charge case that I was a juror on could have resulted in a
AM conviction if she had presented a relatively small amount of evidence
that would show what training / instruction / prior safe gun handling
behavior the defendant had exhibited.  But she didn't, and one of us
(jurors) had a "lack of knowledge" situation that forced us to consider
the possibility that the defendant might not have known the simple
safety rules.  And this in spite of his testimony (not believed, BTW)
that he had purchased the rifle to hunt foxes.  Lacking that evidence
of what the defendant knew about safety, the AM standards demanded that
we find him "not guilty" of that charge.

Who knows -- the same could have happened in the NYC case too, and thus
would have been a truly justifiable "not guilty" verdict.  The act of
weighing evidence to find what to believe, what to not-believe, and
what weight to give the various evidence is a difficult task.  One
where the general knowledge of the community, as reflected within the
jury itself, is of crucial importance to the aim of rendering fair and
impartial results.

If the jury felt it had to ignore evidence, based on their collective
impressions and knowledge of the community, then who are we to gainsay
them.  And if the situation exists that juries in NYC are rendering
unjust acquittals (as you have been stating), then this speaks much
more to the communities lack of trust in their own governmental forces
and institutions than it does to the individual case being discussed.

   >that the evidence was so overwhelming that he should have been
   >sent to prison immediately?  

   In the US, people go through court before they go to prison.

I'm not too sure about this, particularly with respect to people who
cannot raise what appears to be very high bail amounts.  This is yet
another factor that the community can experience that could create
a sense of distrust in government, and its minions' testimony.  I do
not live there, so I cannot say.

   >Are you saying that he should have been
   >retried until found guilty, because "everyone knows he did it"?

   I'm saying that the jury should have considered the evidence, instead
   of throwing it out in a theory of police conspiracy against minorities.

   >Bosh.  How do you define "decent" and "indecent" (in a legal sense) in
   >any way other than "not guilty" and "guilty" without substituting mob
   >rule for justice?  South Africa solved this by "banning" people that the
   >state didn't like.  I don't want to emulate *that* here.

   This is precisely why I am so incensed that some juries have refused
   to convict the defendant, irrespective of any evidence that may be
   brought.  Such actions are indeed substituting mob rule for justice
   here in the USA.

If this is indeed the case, then NYC itself is in deep trouble.  IMHO,
such a situation (to whatever extent it really exists there) is a strong
indication that the community itself feels violated and has no other
remedy for their perceived lack-of-empowerment over their own lives.

   >You haven't even tried to come up with any better ideas.

   I've been arguing with lawyers who have steadfastly claimed that their
   system is working just fine.  It's not.

Au contraire!  My experience shows that the system works very well.  And
IMHO the incidents where it does not work should cause soul-searching
and remedial (individual empowering) situation-changing action from those
in power.  Lacking this, we may see a repeat of Bosnia here at home.  But
the one thing that we should NEVER do is to tamper with the jury system.
Its too good at minimizing problems when the social contract is being
honored, and its too good an indication of impending trouble when the
social contract is being dishonored and/or ignored.

   Perhaps the jury should be held to some higher standards.  Are
   jury-members liable to any punishment for being derelict in their
   duties?  Should juries that produce "bizarre" verdicts be liable for
   contempt of court?  Aren't there new (or old) dangers here?

No.  We don't need any repeat of England's Star Chambers here.  And in
my experience (admittedly limited), juries do take their oaths very
seriously indeed.  It's amazing how hard we worked.  And it wasn't for
the paltry $10. per half-day (New Hampshire's jury remuneration rate).

   I may not have the answers but I can sure say that the current system
   is infamous for it's expense and for it's inability to achieve a
   consistent level of justice.  With many juries, we might as well toss
   a quarter. 

I disagree.

-- Carl Traber    cwt@shockley.mitre.org
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish