Questioning judiciary

    0
    187

    Am I alone in believing that the judge in the Rampart trial is going too far in trying to reverse the guilty verdict on the LAPD officers? Is the respectable public allowing this out of shock that the officers were convicted?

    The historically refreshing thing about the case is that the jury evaluated the evidence without the automatic anti-gang, pro-police prejudice that makes a mockery of the criminal justice system’s claim to be objective.

    Yet the media described all civilized insiders as being shocked, caught off guard, etc. When the judge entertained the claim that the jury foreman made up his mind before hearing the evidence, I began to wonder. When that fell through, the defense lawyers started interviewing jurors about whether they really understood the evidence with the judge nodding approval. Maybe there is nothing wrong with this aggressive defense lawyer questioning of the jury, maybe it’s tampering, I don’t quite know. But it offends me that the judge and other parties seem convinced that there was something wrong with the jury.

    Is there any way to protest this growing climate, or let the judge know that not everyone is “stunned” that the jury found the evidence credible? Just when the criminal justice system, as a result of Rampart, is beginning to turn towards a more responsible role, it appears that pressures are being exerted to reassert the formal prejudicial assumptions about defendants.

    Tom Hayden, Senator

    23rd District