Justice?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt." "Conclusive evidence." "Substantial proof." - All terms and sayings I've heard before, usually associated with legal jargon, and each of the three having a meaning I thought I was familiar with. However, due to recent events and experiences, I find myself seriously contemplating the true definition and applications of these theories.

I spent over eight hours on Monday April 11, 2011 in the U.S. Federal Courthouse in New Orleans. I was attending the criminal trial of someone I consider a good friend, someone whom I haven't had the pleasure of knowing for years, but would classify as much more than merely an acquaintance. I may or may not mention a few names throughout this post, but if you live in the area or are familiar with the facts of this case, you will have no problem figuring out what I will be discussing.

I am a little emotionally attached to this situation, that is why I am taking the time to write about it, but I will try to leave my personal biases out of this post. However, I apologize in advance if any reader interprets my dialect as one-sided or otherwise biased in any way.

My reasoning for attending the trial was two-fold: I was there with my father showing support for someone we care about, and I have always been intrigued by law and the legal environment so I knew this would be a great learning experience for me. The latter proved to hold true, however, the knowledge and better understanding I gained of this legal arena only opened my eyes to a cruel and dysfunctional system I would have rather not known. In subsequent paragraphs, I will try to describe my observations along with an analysis of the events that unfolded.

The trial lasted eight days, only one of which I attended. I was able to see closing arguments by both sides along with the judge's address to the jury. All other knowledge I have about this case is from following news articles and hearing versions of what occurred from those who had attended daily. I sat in the courtroom, on the left side of the aisle, in the company of supporters for the defendants. Opposite the walkway sat the family of the victim, attending in support of prosecutors for the federal government. The very first thing I learned: a court trial is like a wedding - you sit on the side of the party that you are there supporting. Behind us sat an army of news reporters from printed papers and television, pecking away at their laptops and smartphones, both of which gave the occasional annoying chirp. Now, it's one thing to have your phone accidentally go off in the classroom, church, a wedding, or a funeral, but we are in a federal court of the law with only two signs on the door: the judge's name, and "Please ensure all cell phones are turned off." This is not the place to assume it's on vibrate so needless to say, mine was powered down and pocketed.

Closing arguments were actually just what you would expect, and just like you see on TV. The prosecutors talk to the jury, summarize their most critical evidence, and give a final persuasion of why the jury should see the story their way, do what's right, and serve justice. The defense addresses the jury in a similar fashion, contradicting almost every bit of fact the prosecution claimed to be true just minutes ago. Then the prosecution rebuts, with one final argument of why the defense's case is absurdly wrong and therefore guilty. Then came the interesting part, for me at least. After a ten minute recess, the judge spent almost an hour lecturing the jury on how they should go about processing the facts they absorbed in the previous days. He instructed them to leave emotion out of the decision making process, but use their intuition to decipher the disparate claims of fact. He directed them to use their personal opinion to judge the character and viability of witnesses and testifiers and consequently determine the validity of their testimonies. And time and time again, he reminded them that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the prosecution has not done so, the jury is obligated to return a verdict of not guilty. Simply put, he urged them to use their head, not their heart, observe the evidence, in the form of testimonies in this case, and ultimately decide the truthfulness of that evidence.

So what type of evidence would prove the defendants guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? A video clip of the defendants committing the crime sure would be conclusive. That wasn't available. Personal testimonies of eye witnesses who watched the defendants commit the crime would be pretty conclusive. That was available, but that's where things start to get muddy. What if the alleged crime occurred over five years ago, and memories have become a little vague? What if stories told today differ from stories told a few years ago when a previous investigation of the same events was conducted? What if one of the witnesses happened to be escorted onto the stand wearing a jumpsuit with shackles and chains? What if one of the witnesses was questioned about discrepancies in his testimony, and the justification for his changing stories was not only lapse of memory on facts of this case, but a lack of remembrance for what drugs he was using five years ago when the event occurred? Remember what the judge said: observe the evidence, and determine the validity of the testimonies based on judgments of the character giving that testimony. Are these witnesses striking you as reliable? What if the defendants are police officers who patrol the area where these witnesses traffic drugs? Maybe it was just me, but I sensed a motive for these witnesses to sabotage law officers who enforce real justice to true criminals. My emotions are blurring the objective message I am attempting to portray, but the bottom line to me is simple: one of the classes of testimony in this case was given by witnesses who all proved to be an unreliable source of information. My theory only holds true of course if you define unreliable as being previously convicted of crime, giving changing testimonies, and possessing an assumed motive to testify against the defendant (an assumption of my own and I understand very possibly not shared by anyone else).

Second form of testimony in this case: expert witnesses. Contrasted to the first group of witnesses, experts' opinions are backed by scientific proof and credentials to verify their word is legit. If I am going to give credibility to any witness taking the stand, an expert witness it will be.The experts in this case were two doctors, pathologists specifically. One was hired by the prosecutors, the other was hired by the defense. Each testified on behalf of their respective parties, and each gave their medical expert opinion on how the events occurred. One said yes, the other said no. One said it happened, the other said it didn't. One saw white, the other saw black. Conclusive evidence that proves guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? I think not. Remember what the judge said: observe the evidence, and determine the validity of the testimonies based on judgments of the character giving that testimony. So, jurors must analyze the character of  our experts and give weight to each opinion. In an interview after the trial, the jury foreman explicitly admitted that he gave more weight to the doctor testifying on behalf of the prosecution. Also, in the interview, the jury foreman acknowledged the conflicting testimonies from the anything-but-reliable witnesses, but justified the guilty verdict by stating, "something happened there." All of the sudden, a mechanical engineer finds himself as the foreman of a jury deciding the fate of two lives, and the best reasoning for his decision is "something happened there." Not to mention he is suddenly a self-proclaimed medical expert when he gives a statement that completely contradicts the testimony of the doctor hired by the defense. So what made the jury give more weight to the doctor hired by the prosecution? Well he was a nationally recognized and respected pathologist. He possessed every piece of credentials and experience needed to give an accurate testimony. However, in this trial we found ourselves hearing a completely different testimony from this doctor's world renowned and even higher regarded colleague. The doctor testifying on behalf of the defense has been hired for years by the federal government to conduct medical examinations and give testimonies on his findings. He was hired to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He is known by many as THE leader in his field of study. And this man was totally disrespected by the jury when they disregarded his expert opinion. Not only did the jury lend more weight to the opposing testimony, they actually believed this testimony for the defense did not raise a reasonable doubt?

The third form of witnesses was the medical staff at the hospital. Just like the criminal eye-witnesses, I suspect a lot of motive to ensure the demise of the two defendants. If the defendants were found not guilty, the blame would have been transferred to the medical staff by default. Maybe I was the only person who recognized this, but if I were a juror I would certainly have to consider this underlying motive while grading the validity of these testimonies. Although these expert medical witnesses should be held as valid, the testimonies differed so greatly from other supposed facts, how could a reasonable doubt not be questioned? And just to add to my claim of motive: x-rays taken in the ER show one broken rib, while the autopsy of the victim revealed multiple broken ribs. Perhaps something happened at the hospital? Perhaps the medical staff is partially to blame for the demise of the victim? I'm not accusing, just saying "perhaps". And if perhaps the medical staff is partially responsible, then surely they would have a motive for testifying against the defendants.

As I previously mentioned, I am emotionally vested in the verdict of this case, and severely upset by the outcome that resulted. However, I tried my hardest to follow the judge's instructions and observe the facts objectively. Each form of evidence had a prevalent contradiction that I surely thought would raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. Clearly I was wrong, as all 12 jurors unanimously submitted a verdict of guilty. My objective here is not to argue whether the defendants did or did not commit the crime, because as far as I am concerned not many people will ever know the truth. My point of argument is that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Like it or not, that is how our legal system is set up to operate and that is the mentality that I used to analyze the happenings of this case. I believe there is a multitude of doubt lingering, and I am sickened by the way others interpreted the court proceedings.

Please feel free to comment, whether you agree or not. If you have any questions about this case, or about anything written in this post, please ask. If you find any mistakes or feel the need to question any statements or claims of fact, please bring them to my attention. Thanks for reading, hope you enjoy.