Jan. 15
USA:
'CSI' and 'Law & Order' lead jurors to great expectations
Reality TV they are not, but two hit shows are so convincing as imitations
of life in the criminal justice system that some legal experts worry
they're distorting the expectations of real jurors.
The influence of the "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" and "Law & Order"
franchises has permeated American law. Lawyers ask would-be jurors whether
they watch the shows and then change strategies depending on the answers.
Law schools maintain video libraries of the programs as teaching tools and
even analyze the plot lines in class.
Which side benefits the most - prosecutors or defense attorneys - is
debatable. While "Law & Order" glamorizes prosecutors, "CSI" can set
standards for the infallibility of forensic evidence that prosecutors
can't often meet - a science-solves-all formula that millions of viewers
may bring to jury service.
There is no debating, however, one clear, very widespread result of these
programs: The justice system is now facing what legal experts call, "the
CSI effect," a TV-bred demand by jurors for high tech, indisputable
forensic evidence before they will convict.
"These programs have a potential for great mischief but also for great
learning," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University (Los Angeles) Law
School professor who discusses "Law & Order" in her classes and whose
school maintains a library of episodes.
"CSI" dominates network rankings for CBS with versions set in Las Vegas,
Miami and New York, while "Law & Order" and its spinoffs are an NBC
stalwart. Both occupy many hours each day on cable. A single first-run
episode of "CSI' can draw 26 million viewers while a "Law & Order" episode
averages 11.4 million. Multiply that by spinoffs and cable reruns, throw
in other crime-based series, and there's a virtual world of crime-show
junkies who could end up deciding guilt or innocence in real trials.
"The expectations of jurors are more elevated," said Elissa Mayo,
assistant lab director for the California Attorney General's Bureau of
Forensic Services. "They think that we have all the space-age equipment
that they see on TV and before you come back from the commercial break you
have the results."
In response, scholarly law journals have included articles suggesting that
prosecutors warn jurors at the outset that it can be very difficult to
obtain forensic evidence and that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
prove a case.
The problem is that many cases have little forensic evidence, notes
Michael Asimow, a UCLA law professor who teaches a course on law and
popular culture.
"Shows like 'CSI' are teaching people that without forensic evidence you
can't convict anybody," said Asimow.
In Baltimore, for example, less than 10 % of homicide cases in the state
attorney's office in 2004 involved fingerprint or DNA evidence. Evidence,
instead, often was circumstantial or reliant on eyewitnesses.
In one case, an 11-year-old girl pointed at a defendant and said, "That's
the man who shot my father." But jurors found him not guilty. One later
explained: "I would have liked to see some evidence, like finding the gun
with fingerprints."
In last year's murder case against Robert Blake, prospective jurors were
asked whether they could fairly evaluate evidence prosecutors contended
would show the former tough-guy actor killed his wife.
"Oh, that's easy," said one prospect. "I'll just go by the DNA."
A prosecutor informed the potential juror there might not be DNA evidence
- and as the case played out there was none. Forensic testimony focused on
a smattering of gunshot residue and blood spatter and the claim that
police mishandled evidence - an issue stressed in Blake's successful
defense by attorney M. Gerald Schwartzbach.
Schwartzbach acknowledged that jurors probably were more receptive to his
hours of laborious cross-examination on scientific details because of
their exposure to TV forensics shows - though he dismisses those shows as
"electronic relatives of tabloid journalism.
Hollywood's take on forensics is what millions of viewers get each week as
they watch pistol-packing sleuths peer at bloody crime scene evidence and
get the bad guy thanks to technology. The fact that a forensic expert with
a gun could possibly contaminate evidence doesn't bother Ann Donahue,
executive producer and co-creator of "CSI Miami."
"What we're doing is entertaining," she said. "It's like a medical show.
When you go to the hospital, you're not going to find that doctor you see
on TV."
Dick Wolf, who launched the "Law & Order" franchise 16 years ago, traces
his show's roots to a pitch he made to the late NBC chief Brandon
Tartikoff for a program based on "the front page of the New York Post."
"And that's still it," he says, "'Headless body found in topless bar' is
still a great story."
The "Law & Order" series frequently offers thinly disguised dramatizations
of high-profile cases. But Wolf says the shows are more than mere
entertainment.
"I think we have raised people's awareness of how the justice system
operates, how evidence is obtained, the conflicts between cops and
prosecutors, why evidence is excluded that the jury never gets to see," he
said.
Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., who won acquittal for Michael
Jackson on child molestation charges in a case with almost no forensic
evidence, said he rarely watches "CSI" or "Law & Order," but doesn't
object to jurors being educated by TV.
"I think we're better off if the public understands what techniques are
available," Mesereau said. "I have great faith in American juries and I
would like to think that they know a lot of these shows are pure fantasy."
But sometimes that fantasy does alter the reality of a case.
Last year in Texas, the conviction of Andrea Yates in the drowning deaths
of her 5 children was reversed because of an error involving "Law &
Order."
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz, a key prosecution witness and 1-time
consultant for the show, testified that an episode in which a woman
drowned her children in a bathtub aired before the Yates killings.
Prosecutors suggested Yates concluded from that episode that she could get
away with the murders.
However, it turned out, there was no such episode and Dietz has admitted
he was mistaken.
In reversing Yates' conviction, an appeals court said his testimony could
have affected the judgment of the jury.
(source: Associated Press)
*******************
Execution and Apathy
When the State of California executed Stanley "Tookie" Williams last
month, the news media briefly pulled their heads out of the sand and
prompted us to think about the death penalty and the possibility of
redemption behind bars. Then, five minutes later, they went back to
reporting on Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.
Apparently, most Americans care more about the sex lives of celebrities
than the injustices that are being funded by our tax dollars. Death row
inmates aren't as sexy as movie stars, and most don't have Tookie's star
power. Unless it's being glamorized on a "Law and Order" episode, the
death penalty is simply dismissed as a boring partisan political football.
But the death penalty is not about left vs. right. It's about wrong vs.
right. It's about the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. It's about
human rights, and it's about human decency. And, while Americans spend
their time worrying about what Angelina is doing with Brad, governors
across the country keep on signing death warrants.
Because of this apathy, the United States is the only Western democracy
that still claims for itself the right to execute its citizens. Each year
since 1976, three more nations have added their names to the list of
countries that have abolished the death penalty. This worldwide trend
towards abolition of the death penalty reflects the growing awareness that
there are alternative punishments that are effective and which do not
involve state-sponsored killing. But America does not care.
Amnesty International describes the death penalty as "the ultimate,
irreversible denial of human rights." By retaining the death penalty, the
United States finds itself increasingly out of step with the rest of the
world, aligned on this issue only with such backward nations as
Afghanistan, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Cuba, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala,
and Mongolia. Furthermore, as a moral litmus test, it is interesting to
note that most major religious denominations in the United States have
statements opposing the death penalty. But Brad and Angie are so much more
alluring.
So Americans don't waste their time thinking about it. When the subject
comes up, they mindlessly parrot the tired old death penalty myths:
Myth #1: An eye for an eye, rah-rah-rah.
Logically, it makes little sense to use execution to condemn killing. Such
an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to
use physical violence against a victim. It is the premeditated and
cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of
"justice". When someone is convicted of rape, we do not turn that person
over to an official State Rapist to be treated in kind as punishment.
Therefore, it is difficult to understand why some people find it
appropriate to kill in order to show that killing is wrong. It offers
society not further protection but further brutalization.
Myth #2: It's about justice.
Studies have shown that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory,
arbitrary, and uneven manner, and is used disproportionately against
racial minorities and the poor. For example, a recent study of death
sentences in Philadelphia found that African-American defendants were
almost four times more likely to receive the death penalty than were
people of other ethnic origins who committed similar crimes. Where is the
justice in that?
Myth #3: It serves as a deterrent.
The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. It is incorrect and
naive to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so
after rationally calculating the consequences. Murders are often committed
in moments when emotion overcomes reason, or under the influence of drugs,
alcohol, or mental illness. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated
serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that
they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to
increase the likelihood of detection, arrest, and conviction. The death
penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime.
Myth #4: It brings closure to victims' families.
Not all families are thirsty for revenge. In fact, so many families oppose
the death penalty that some have formed an organization called Murder
Victims' Families for Reconciliation, through which they actively work to
abolish the death penalty.
Murder is always a despicable act and a terrible tragedy. But killing the
murderer will not bring the victim back.
A striking example of the growing worldwide public support against the
death penalty is the illumination of the Colosseum in Rome whenever a
death sentence is suspended or commuted anywhere in the world. It is also
illuminated whenever a country establishes a moratorium on executions or
abolishes the death penalty. Perhaps someday the Colosseum will light up
to celebrate the abolition of the death penalty in the United States,
thereby symbolizing American society's newly enlightened approach to
criminal justice. In the meantime, we must work to promote justice, not
revenge, one case at a time.
Perhaps Mahatma Ghandi said it best: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole
world blind."
(source: OpEdNews (Authors Bio: Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer
and activist. She currently serves as Philadelphia Area Coordinator for
Amnesty International, and her views on politics, human rights, and social
justice issues have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers
and magazines worldwide. Note that the ideas expressed in this article are
the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty
or any other organization with which she may be associated. E-mail
[email protected]. )
***************************
System still flawed despite DNA finding----Executed Virginia man was not
innocent, but others probably are
So he's guilty as charged.
Never mind the timeline that some thought made it almost impossible for
him to have committed the crime. Never mind the book casting doubt on his
culpability. Never mind his death chair declaration: "An innocent man is
going to be murdered tonight."
Never mind any of it. Last week, a DNA test confirmed that Roger Coleman
did indeed commit the crime for which the state of Virginia executed him
in 1992, the rape and murder of his sister-in-law Wanda McCoy, 11 years
before.
For those who believed in Coleman's innocence, to say nothing of those who
simply believe capital punishment an unwieldy, unfair and uncivilized way
of punishing crime, the news is a bitter blow. Some had imagined Coleman's
might be the case that put a human face on the death penalty's fallibility
and the potential consequences thereof.
Instead, the only thing proven is that Coleman, in addition to being a
rapist and murderer, was also a con artist and liar.
If proof of his guilt is disappointing to those who oppose capital
punishment, one imagines it is received more warmly by death penalty
advocates, particularly those in the gubernatorial and prosecutorial
offices of Virginia. The state's criminal justice system stands
vindicated.
Virginia resisted testing
It is telling, though, that Virginia resisted for years allowing the
sophisticated DNA testing, unavailable during Coleman's lifetime, that
conclusively proved his guilt. This, even though a coalition of newspapers
and an anti-death penalty group offered to pick up the tab. The state
fought them all the way to its Supreme Court. After the court ruled in
Virginia's favor and the coalition asked Gov. Mark Warner to authorize
testing on his own authority, he dithered for four years before finally
giving approval.Point being, Virginia's reluctance to allow the test
suggests the state had less than maximum confidence in its outcome. Would
you resist something you knew would prove you right?
While I can commiserate with those who worked on Coleman's behalf and feel
personally betrayed by him, the larger community of death penalty
opponents has as little reason to feel chagrined by these results as death
penalty advocates have to celebrate them. The inevitable has only been
forestalled, not denied.
Since 1973, more than 120 people have been released from death row after
being proven wrongly convicted.
In November, the Houston Chronicle reported that Texas likely erred in
1993 when it executed a man named Ruben Cantu for robbery and murder. The
only witness to the crime now says he identified Cantu wrongly, under
pressure from police.
The man who was supposedly Cantu's partner says Cantu was not with him.
Only matter of time
So it is only a matter of time before someone is proven, to a scientific
certainty, to have been executed for a crime he did not commit.
How can it be otherwise? How can we believe a system conceived by human
beings can work without flaw? Or that all mistakes are caught before it is
too late?
Not a chance. Someone will die -- probably already has -- because of a
lying cop, a bad lawyer, a mean judge, a botched investigation. But most
of all, because some of us prefer to close our eyes to the obvious, be
narcotized by denial, sleep in the unearned assurance that the system
works for everybody, always.
It had been thought -- and hoped -- that Roger Coleman would be the
wake-up call. He is not.
But someone will be.
And when it happens, those who support capital punishment will have to
explain why this was an acceptable death, why an innocent life taken in
our name ought not give us pause, ought not bring us shame, ought not make
us ill.
Against that day, I have 2 words of advice for advocates of
state-sanctioned killing:
Sleep well.
Leonard Pitts
(source: Knight Ridder - Leonard Pitts, winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize
for commentary, is a Miami Herald columnist)
ALABAMA:
Justice Parker at odds with other justices over murder case
State Supreme Court Justice Mike Bolin was shocked one morning when he
opened his newspaper and saw an op-ed page article by Justice Tom Parker
criticizing Bolin and the other justices for following a decision by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Parker accused his fellow justices of being accomplices to
unconstitutional actions by activist judges.
"It is an unprecedented attack by a member of the Supreme Court on each
fellow justice and an attack on the court as an institution," Bolin said.
Parker said his op-ed page article, published Jan. 1 in The Birmingham
News, was not meant to be personal or political. "It's judicial
philosophy," he said.
Parker, once an aide to former Chief Justice Roy Moore, got elected to the
Supreme Court last year. His article renewed speculation that he was
getting ready to enter the Republican race for chief justice against GOP
incumbent Drayton Nabers.
"It was not written with that in mind. I am getting people urging me to
run, but I'm just watching and waiting at this point," Parker said in an
interview.
Nabers declined comment on Parker's op-ed page article.
The disagreement among the all-Republican court stems from a decision
issued by the court on Dec. 23. All the justices except Parker reversed a
lower court decision upholding a death sentence for Renaldo Chante Adams,
who was 17 when he raped and murdered a pregnant Montgomery woman. The
case now goes back to a lower court, where prosecutors expect Adams to get
a sentence of life in prison without parole.
The Alabama Supreme Court based its decision on a U.S. Supreme Court
ruling last year that barred the execution of people who were under 18
when they committed murder.
Parker couldn't participate in the Adams decision or write a dissenting
opinion because he worked on Adams' case earlier in his career as an
assistant state attorney general. Instead, Parker chose to write an op-ed
page article for the state's largest newspaper, where it got far more
exposure than a dissenting opinion would.
Parker wrote that he was not surprised that "liberal activists" on the
U.S. Supreme Court used "ridiculous reasoning" - including citing foreign
laws - to reach their 5-4 decision against executing juveniles.
"But I am surprised, and dismayed, that my colleagues on the Alabama
Supreme Court not only gave in to this unconstitutional activism without a
word of protest but also became accomplices to it by citing Roper (the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision) as the basis for their decision to free
Adams from Death Row," he wrote.
Parker wanted his colleagues to uphold Adams' death sentence and then use
the case as a way to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its decision
- or to at least show that the Alabama Supreme Court was "standing up
against judicial activism."
Parker's desire to buck a U.S. Supreme Court decision came two years after
his former boss, Roy Moore, lost his job as chief justice for refusing to
follow a federal judge's order to remove his Ten Commandments monument
from display in the state judicial building.
Bolin said he doesn't like the U.S. Supreme Court's decision against
executing minors, but the Alabama Supreme Court can't ignore it. "It's
controlling precedent," he said in an interview.
Bolin accused Parker of exercising the same judicial activism that he
criticizes in his article.
"It's an activist - I'd call it liberal - point of view," he said.
Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a conservative
education and research organization in Birmingham, doesn't like the U.S.
Supreme Court's ruling either. But he said the eight justices on the
Alabama Supreme Court were upholding the rule of law, and Parker was
undermining the decorum of the court by attacking their credibility.
"By writing the article, Parker himself demonstrated a lack of judicial
restraint and that is no way for a member of the state's highest court to
conduct himself," Palmer said in a statement.
Michael Krauss, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia and
a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said it's unusual to see a judge
write an op-ed article, but "it's almost refreshing to see that difference
of opinion come out in the open."
Krauss doesn't buy the argument about Parker acting like a liberal
activist judge.
"If it's activism to resist judicial activism, then the first activist
always wins," he said.
Krauss, on the other hand, doubts that Parker's strategy would have
worked. He said the 2 recent changes in the U.S. Supreme Court involve
justices who were in the minority on the death penalty case, and even if
more changes occur on the court, the justices probably wouldn't want to
get back into a hot issue so soon.
"At this point the court is not prepared to overturn the previous
decision," he said in an interview.
With Parker's strategy now moot, he's left to wonder whether anyone will
file a complaint with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission accusing him
of violating the state Canons of Judicial Ethics.
One of those canons says a judge should promote public confidence in the
judiciary.
"You have to question whether some or all of this was a violation of the
canons," Bolin said.
Parker says he was simply upholding his oath of office to support the
Constitution, and his writing didn't violate the canons.
He's heard rumors that a complaint may be filed, like the one that led to
Roy Moore's removal from office, but so far, he says he's seen no sign of
it.
After the reaction to this op-ed article, would Parker write another?
"It depends on what comes up. I'm passionate in defense of the
Constitution I swore to support," he said.
(source: Associated Press)
