Posted on 03/24/2005 5:04:36 AM PST by Hawk44
LOS ANGELES Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said jurors who acquitted actor Robert Blake of the murder of his wife are "incredibly stupid" and insisted his office had put on a good case.
In his first comments on the high-profile loss, Cooley said the verdict shows prosecuting celebrities is extremely difficult in Los Angeles.
"The Blake case taught us some lessons, that is for sure," Cooley said. "Quite frankly, based on my review of the evidence, he is as guilty as sin. He is a miserable human being."
Chuck Safko, one of the jurors who voted to acquit Blake, answered with scorn of his own.
"To hear him say we aren't a smart jury is sour grapes," Safko said. "They didn't have a good case. Their case was built around witnesses who weren't truthful."
Blake, 71, was accused of murdering his wife on May 4, 2001, mainly based on the word of two Hollywood stuntmen who testified the actor tried to hire them to kill her. Only two jurors ever thought Blake might be guilty, according to interviews after the verdict, and all 12 came to the unanimous verdict of not guilty after two weeks of deliberations.
The comment shows Cooley is "small-minded," said Blake's attorney, Gerald Schwartzbach. It was worthy of a politician, not a lawyer, Schwartzbach said.
Cooley's comments were unusual, but not unethical, according to legal experts.
"To criticize the jurors is unprofessional it is unbelievable," said Laurie Levinson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School. "I think you have to give the jury credit. They are very conscientious jury. It was a reasonable-doubt case, and disagreeing with Mr. Cooley doesn't make them stupid."
Maybe, but it appears that the jury room was always solidly in favour of aquittal. It would have taken Henry Fonda to get them to deliver a guilty verdict.
Or at least says such things publically!
He would have been better off not bringing the case to trial, holding off to see if more evidence would pop up in the future. Blake is no serial murderer and represented little threat to be in the populace for the time being.
If there was no trial, it could take years for the mystery to be solved, true. It might never be solved.
But almost-forgotten cold cases are solved all the time by bulldog investigative and forensics work. Sometimes it takes a decade or more for the truth to surface.
Bringing the Blake case to trial with insufficient evidence resulted in him being a free man. On the obverse, NOT bringing him to trial would have had the same result, but at least with a remote, long chance of key evidence surfacing and a later trial.
It was a crap shoot for the prosecutor, he jumped the wrong way with his decision, and unfortunately, the State will never get another shot at the perp in the future.
Leni
Difference is:
"D'oh. I forgot my gun. Just call me dumb"
"Blake asked us to kill his wife. We didn't tell the cops. Blake's wife was murdered. We didn't tell the cops. The cops questioned us. We still didn't tell the cops. Later we told the cops. Just call us slimeballs"
We can all identify with the first. The second: not so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.