Posted on 11/02/2005 8:39:55 PM PST by fryVang
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5705101.html
Media bias- Yes, the media was biased. They were extremely biased towards the defendant, seeking to blame the victims at every turn. This is a problem, but somehow I don't think that is what the court monitors are referring to. Regardless, the media had no influence on the fairness of the trial that this group was monitoring, so I don't see the relevance.
The apparent discrimination against minority courtroom observers- I would like specific instances of this. I would suspect that all this means is that some of them got strange looks. Guess what, I'm white and I think that half of Hayward is looking at me wierd when I go there, but I don't care. Again, I don't see what this had to do with Vang getting a fair trial, which is what the group was there to make sure of.
Brevity of Vang's defense- As his lawyers stated on many occasions, additional witnesses would have done nothing but hurt Vang's already non-existent defense. When there is no defense, it naturally isn't going to last long.
3 Hour jury deliberation- As the juror stated in the above-posted letter, I don't know how much time you are required to spend to make everybody happy. Vang had no case, the prosecution had mountains of evidence that he was undoubtedly guilty. It was obvious to anybody with a brain in their skull that he was guilty. The jurors also had brains in their skulls and it was obvious for them as well.
In all of this there is no recognition that Vang was, in fact, guilty and the jury got it right. I think this group recognizing that point instead of *****ing about nothing would be alot more helpful to everybody
The defense was brief? Imagine that. I wanted a detailed explanation for their client shooting down an unarmed person in the back. And just going on a killing spree in general. So we go back to blame the jury, huh?
Just found an article with a little more info, it is the AP article.
http://wcco.com/local/local_story_306224249.html
I don't buy the comment about the media's interpretation of what Vang meant when he said the hunters deserved to die. This group says the Hmong lexicon has 3 slightly varied ways to express the word "deserved." The jury didn't only hear him say that once, they heard him say it in a conversation with a reporter from March. I would bet every cent I have that Vang's lawyers advised him after that conversation that he shouldn't say that anybody deserved to die. Also, in the context that he used the term, I can't see any other way to interpret it. The media didn't need to mention the possible interpretations problems, but if you want to criticize them for doing it, I think calling them ignorant would be a better complaint. To call the bias would imply that they knew about these 3 alternate interpretations, and I doubt any of them knew, because if they had they probably WOULD have mentioned them.
From what I know of this case Vang`s attorneys were horrible defending him. Not saying the guy wasn`t guilty, but the defense his attorneys put on was suspect.
I figured if there was an appeal, it would focus on that issue. You could almost see it coming.
ping
The Chicago Tribune printed an excreble series on Vang just before the trial started-- 90 miles from Chicago.
The reporter who wrote it ought to serve part of Vang's sentence.
fryVang
Since Oct 14, 2005
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.