So many Freepers here hate the police and the court system, but you would guess from their postings it all comes from being on the defendant side of the proceedings. As an objective third party, would you have been comfortable casting that vote?
I'm always curious to hear first hand accounts.
I would have been comfortable voting “guilty.” Its just very sad. There’s no one happy, not the family that will never hold their child in their arms again nor the family that lost the guy who did it.
I wouldn’t wish that on any one. Justice was done but its never going to bring that kid to life again.
IC, I’m going to answer your inquiry in detail since I’m clinically OCD and this has been bottled up inside me for almost two weeks.
Three caveats: Prosecution witnesses exuded professionalism from the stand—but of course they would, even if there may have been chaos at the scene. Also, even though each (and I do mean judge, counsel and prosecutor) stressed emphatically and often that “this is not an episode of CSI”, the characters were classically animated, almost caricatures of their respective roles. I’ll elaborate by your questions below. And finally, I don’t pretend to know the legal field or parameters and constraints of conducting a trial, but I do have common sense.
The cops?
The arresting officers were Cagney and Lacy. I mean “special issue of Penthouse” material. Babes on the witness stand with Glocks on their hips. But straight-up, by-the-book professional law enforcement officers. All testimony (not just from them) eluded to almost over-the-top procedure to the point of coddling this drunk who profusely blamed the family he just mowed down. No wailing of batons. Just the proper steps from the stop, to the cuffs, to transporting to the hospital for blood testing, to booking. Bing bang boom.
The investigators?
The defense had a real James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) ringer who couldn’t manage playing a DVD in court. We spun our wheels for 45 minutes watching him trying to get that thing to play on a PC. I finally chimed in (probably outside of my scope of allowed court behavior), “Hey, guy. That’s not a playable DVD. It’s a data CD with .mov files that you need Quicktime to play.” Finally gave up and whatever it was he wanted to submit as evidence was scrapped.
The forensics?
CSI was a short George Lopez with Judge Napolitano’s widdow’s peak and Tom Seleck’s mustache. Again, strictly business. He was the guy who walked the 1.3-mile smear of carnage twice, placing at least 75 number plaques next to evidence and taking pics. God bless him, he had to pull the mangled baby’s body from under the truck.
The D.A.?
Alanis Morissette. Great at her job, and she DID get a conviction, but... My visual communication OCD kicked in early. Google maps were dark. I had a hard time grasping time frames and witness perspectives. [In my head: “Do it this way! Map it out! Ask this question!] I actually spoke with her afterwards and she sincerely wants to hear my detailed feedback. Hey, I may find a new graphics niche gig. I don’t think she ever had an objection overruled whereas pretty much every objection by defense was overruled. Which leads me to...
The defense?
Walter Matthau. Epitome of the shyster lawyer. Couldn’t connect with the jury to save his life (or his client’s, apparently). Kept trying to form analogies that just plain made no sense at all. Paced back and forth between his notes on the defense table to the podium with long gaps in between. I found myself enacting a “filter” when he spoke because he often misspoke. “Point A...excuse me, I mean Point B.” GET IT TOGETHER, MAN! It was never established whether he was a public defender or a hired lawyer. If he was paid, I think the defendant was ripped off. There were enough examples of conflicting testimony by key witnesses to seed doubt, but he didn’t pursue that strategy. I could honestly foresee a line of defense that could have gotten the thug off for most charges, but ol’ Frisco blew it, in my opinion. I anxiously awaited his closing argument to see what his defense angle was, only to be floored that he conceded every point of contention and begged for a lower charge of manslaughter. What?
The judge?
Mike Yanagita from Fargo. Spitting image—right down to the smile. This guy knew his stuff, but very human and often humorous. That was HIS court and everyone knew it. He sincerely cared for “his jurors.” He had this gesture he’d use to say it’s us (he and the jury) against them (counsel and prosecutor). The guy next to me (Alternate Juror #2) sometimes fell asleep and started snoring. The judge only had to look at him, then me, then give just the right facial expression that told me to elbow him awake. I really liked the judge.
So my first juror experience (in almost 50 years) was interesting, while frustrating that I never got to deliberate with “the 12.” I felt like that kid always picked last for dodgeball teams. Meanwhile, I missed several important client meetings and the food upstairs was expensive, but digestible. I’m free at last.
The overall experience was positive. I’m glad I was able to fulfill my service. It was real life albeit on the dark side. But it did affect me. I haven’t slept well. I can’t shake the sensation of being on the verge of tears. A trembling volcano of emotion due for eruption. I have 4 kids myself. I gave up watching gory movies years ago. What happened to that little girl was horrifying. It could never be established when she actually died or how much she may have suffered. I can’t fathom the pain of the parents.
I know one thing. As many times in my wayward youth I drove home totally blitzed, I’ll never again get behind the wheel with so much as a jigger in me. And I’ll henceforth look twice, thrice and so on when crossing the street with my kids in tow. One guy in particular is no longer an issue. But there are more like him out there.
in 1998 he was convicted of a drug charge and given three years probation. Probation didn’t go very well, and soon he was serving five years in state prison for two separate violations.
In 2000, Neely Dinkins was arrested again, this time for burglary, but that charge ended up getting dropped because there wasn’t enough evidence to pin it on him
There ya go. How’s that for our legal system?
Haha. You’re asking way too much, even of freepers...as this thread will almost certainly prove. Sadly, people sentence others to their doom based on emotion and nothing else. Whether or not the judge/prosecution/cops did a good job is not relevant. What is relevant, unfortunately, is that the correct emotion is generated in the 12 sheep observing the courtroom performances.
When some 'no body' said he felt there was a war against cops going on (after the Tucson shooting) almost EVERY newspaper and MSM outlet picked it up. Those groups carry water for liberals - not us... It was telling. The implication was conservatives were the killers... Krugman jumps to that at every chance. So do the rest of them... and it becomes a non-news story when it turns out the person is anything but conservative...
I don't know why liberals are trying to set the criminal justice system against us - but it's what they're up to.
They're pushing a lie. Look at Bill Ayers - a man who dedicated a book to all cop killers - check out the prisons - probably 97% democrats. They've got Timothy McVeigh - and that's about it.... I'll give you a link you might enjoy... soon.
Link at bottom:
When 13 US soldiers at Ft. Hood, including a pregnant woman, were mowed down in cold blood (and 30 more wounded), President Obama didn’t interrupt a Native American shout-out to renounce the horror. When Obama finally did speak, he urged us not to jump to conclusions. Since then, next to nothing has been said about the slaughter. The fact that the murderer was a Muslim automatically disqualifies the soldiers from being “good victims.”
In contrast, during the recent, also horrific Tucson massacre, 20 people were injured and 6 killed by an apparently psychotic 22 year old. Given that the Ft. Hood murders involved an internal Jihad, doesn’t this genocide pose a greater safety risk to this country than a lunatic in Tucson? Consequently, shouldn’t Ft. Hood have been dissected and analyzed for months on end?
However, since the politicos found a way to blame Tucson on conservatives, this latter atrocity has garnered much more publicity. In fact, Obama presided over a huge Memorial Service for the families and survivors of Tucson. No comparable event was held for the loved ones of Ft. Hood.
The Left divides the world into good and bad victims. People who are viewed as part of an aggrieved group are “good victims.” Those who suffer at the hands of these protected groups are not afforded this same status. In fact, “bad victims,” such as the middle school teacher, as well as I, are made to feel responsible for being assaulted. Good victims are showered with attention because they reinforce the Leftist party line.
The Left needs to control popular opinion by censoring information that’s unflattering to their cause.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2667203/posts