It’s always best not to comment on interviews one has not seen and books one has not read, so let’s just focus on what we do know about O.J. Simpson’s latest foray into the limelight — the title:
“If I Did It, Here’s How it Happened.”
What could “It” be? Just a guess, but maybe a cash-strapped O.J. has decided to cash in with a coy interview and book about the savage 1994 murders of his wife and her boyfriend. Then again, maybe it’s just a poignant look at the difficulties of being a single dad.
The Fox network is kicking things off with an interview airing over two nights; the book goes on sale the next day, Nov. 30.
If you’re eager to watch O.J. squirm under pointed questioning about DNA evidence and the crime of the decade, don’t be. The interview will be conducted by his publisher, Judith Regan.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
70 Comments
So what are the chances that America will do the right thing and refuse to buy a single copy of this screed from a multiple murderer?
I’m guessing zero.
And for God’s sake, who agreed to publish it?
Oh well. Just another sign of the apocolypse . . . .
GMC70,
Apocalypse, indeed. I believe that was the word I used while watching the Al Cowlings police chase unfold in real time.
It’s one thing to be a get away with murder. It is quite another when to your own enjoyment you go out and slap everyone in the face with it – especially the families of the victims.
This is simply monstrous!
Kinda reminds you of Dennis Rader, a.k.a. BTK who would continue to fantasize about his past crimes and truly enjoyed the torment he put this community and the victims families through.
Another red letter day for Fox……..
I’m sure the interview will be “fair and balanced”
From a purely money side, shouldn’t we all hope that the book is a great commercial success, and makes all kinds of money? Then, the Brown family and the Goldman family will have assets against which they might execute to help satisfy the wrongful death judgments they recovered against O.J.
I believe the judgments are still “alive” and executable upon. I am unaware of any exemption granted under state or federal law which would protect the money.
Clarification: I’m talking about the author’s royalties here, not the publisher’s profits.
GMC, we agree again.I wouldn’t read the piece of shit if they paid me to.
I was extremely disappointed that courts denied the Goldman family the rights to OJ’s likeness recently in a move to try and prevent him from making all the under the table cash at various autograph sessions he has been doing recently.Like many celebrities his name is a business as much as anything.Maybe he’ll go down for tax evasion eventually, like all the great one’s do (Al Capone, Pete Rose, etc.)
I was extremely disappointed that courts denied the Goldman family the rights to OJ’s likeness recently in a move to try and prevent him from making all the under the table cash at various autograph sessions he has been doing recently.Like many celebrities his name is a business as much as anything.Maybe he’ll go down for tax evasion eventually, like all the great one’s do (Al Capone, Pete Rose, etc.)
Vaughn:
You’re the civil guy here. Any way the publisher’s profits are reachable by the victim’s families?
If there is justice, I would hope so.
I think the British press had the best take on this with this headline:WITH BALLS LIKE THIS, HOW CAN HE WEAR PANTS?
GMC, as I posted in clarification above, not to my knowledge. Generally, the so-called “Son of Sam” laws that prohibit convicted felons from profiting from their misdeeds only reach the killer’s, e.g., profits. Of course, these would not apply to O.J., assuming the respective states had adopted such. The publisher, while aiding and abetting the fame, was not a party to the wrongful death suit, as here; thus, there would not be, under the general principles of law applicable to execution, attachment, etc., any way to reach any profits of the publisher. Due process, and all that.
That White Bronco slow chase, stopped time in America. FORD hated it first.
Society says OJ is guilty of killing Ron Goldman, but also his wife. That case made it seem impossible one killer could do both. Maybe an athletic killer could.
Horrible lab and bumbling police investigators. Trial of the Century, some say. It had every “ill” of society. Fame, money, racism and court of public opinion to see it all happen.
If blogging had been created then!
OJ’s book, we all have to suffer some fools and their free speech rights.
It’s not his idea at all, so FOX is making a run on money with it. “News” scoop. He’s already guilty for bringing it up again.
No one should buy the book, every word will be online eventually.
How the Goldman’s can profit they have to pay expensive lawyers to chase that money, then there is nothing left in honor of his son, Ron. Brown family and their daughter, Nicole. Those victims should be remembered, its hard to forget OJ.
The NFL can’t take what he did on that field and erase it. Neither can USC. He’s a historical sports figure forever.
I wonder what Mr. Simpson’s childrens reaction will be to his new book. He might be well advised to think about what alienation of his children is worth. While he may get another dig at the families, if his now adult children turn their backs on him, what has he gained?
Kathy, how do we know that of which you post has not already happened? Seems there was/is enough going on in their world as they matured such that it is easily imaginable they would indeed already be alienated. If so, the book will make no difference; if not, it likely will not, either.
What strikes me about the OJ verdict is the number of Black people who think OJ is innocent (90%?) as opposed to the number of White people who believe just the opposite.’Sup with that?
fleettwood, a mixture of the LAPD, plus just good old African -American suspicion of the legal system.
And now, a word from the publisher:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/15/simpsoninterview.ap/index.html
“…good old African -American suspicion of the legal system.”
Suspicion I would say they have reasons to harbor. Having said that, I recall an interview of an African American juror after the trial, she seemed irritated that there was presentation of evidence of Simpson’s battering of Nichole. She said something like, “this was a murder trial, wife beating had nothing to do with that!”
Did I read that right?Are you agreeing that one couldn’t possibly have to do with the other (wife beating and subsequent murder of?)?
I am not defending O. J. Simpson, but aren’t we losing track of the fact that Mr. Simpson was found “not guilty”. On the other hand, he was not found “innocent”. Was the trial a travesty … the best justice money can buy … great trial lawyers v. the legal equivilent of Frick and Frack, Clark and Darden ? Probably, it was. But it is over, done, and yesterday’s headlines.
O. J.’s current lawyers will, no doubt, devise a scheme to shield any assets from this “production/seduction” and the wrongful death judgments will gather more dust. All we can do is refuse to be a part of it by not buying neither the book nor the products of the sponsors of the Fox presentation.
If we do that, perhaps O. J. will finally just go away and stay away. It’s, unfortunately, the best we can hope for.
True, rm, true. However, I fear the great unwashed, to not coin a phrase, will flock to B&N, Border’s, etc., to satisfy their need for…whatever.
Vaughn :
All I can say, my friend, is “yep”.
I feel really dumb; I’ve been trying to figure out why Fox would put this tripe on; duh, November is a “sweeps” month, ratings during the month used to set advertising rates for the next period. (Kicking myself in the butt over and over….)
From someone in the bizness “exactly”
BTW, the book jacket of John Grisham’s new book, his first non-fiction, “The Innocent Man”, states, in part, the following:
“If you believe that in America you are innocent until proven guilty, this book will shock you. If you believe in the death penalty, this book will disturb you. If you believe the criminal justice system is fair, this book will infuriate you.”
I recommend it without reservation to everyone. It is breathtaking…and exhausting. You couldn’t write fiction more heart rendering.
You know what would really be a ratings bonanza? Allowing Mark Furman to be an interviewer. I might actually take the block off Fox News to watch that!
Yeah, and they could have Dennis Fung walking through periodically tripping over chairs, small tables, sound cords, etc.
The guy who created..www.tmz.com was/is a nutty obsessive reporter on the OJ story.
His theory, OJ jealous of Nicole and boyfriends, saw her through that condo window, made noise, she came out and he cut her throat.
Ron Goldman walks up within….him and OJ fight, stabbed repeatedly.
I always thought it was two people ( Al Cowlings help ) OJ fighting with Goldman and not good at murder. He was a bad actor!
Both on the condo steps but OJ spots Goldman walking on the sidewalk. Hides, then attacks him.
Fight made noise, Nicole came out and someone else grabbed her. That person cut her neck.
Both snuck away in the Bronco?
I’ve never believed OJ did it alone.
You righties should be ashamed at Faux news for giving this man a venue.
This is a byproduct of our justice system. To ensure fairness, sometimes the bad guy will get away.
We should remember that OJ was indeed found not guilty, however that’s really hard to stomach. The best thing we could do as a society is to ignore him completely.
Maybe someday the L.A. County Sheriff Dept. will actually learn how to collect evidence. They bungled it with Charlie Manson and then again with O.J. If I’d been on the jury, I would’ve voted ‘not guilty,’ too. The case was full of holes that should’ve been without if it had been done correctly.
PM:
Certainly, we agree precisely. Except, being more “right” than “left”, I can’t understand blaming Faux News on us. They’re as sorry as all the rest of them. Granted, as Vaughn said, “sweeps week” explains a lot, and they may have plummeted to a new “low” in sensationalistic National Enquireresque media jingoism — I just can’t see how it’s our fault.
And, from time to time, the bad guys do get away. But I do believe this — “the United States of America has the worst legal system in the world….except for all the others”. (I wish that was an original quote, but it’s not, and appropriate.)
“Did I read that right?”Are you agreeing that one couldn’t possibly have to do with the other (wife beating and subsequent murder of?)?”
I thought it was remarkably uninformed & consistent with the verdict that jury returned — one that was very hard to believe.
Sorry I did not answer sooner, I was out running errands and then out to dinner. Man, it is chilly out there in Wichita, America.
Shitpiss PM. It’s a business.They’re gonna’ do whatever sells advertisement.Capice?
The day it comes out, I would like to see the book scanned and posted to the internet. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving “author”.
I’d rather see every copy unsold and unread.
Interesting thought, Steven — I wonder who the “ghost writer” was. OJ can’t even put a simple declarative sentence together, let alone write a book.
At the risk of this morphing into an all night forum of theories, suppose, just for a moment, that O. J. did not do the killing … his older son did. O. J. knows that, and he also knew that, in the worse case scenerio, the State of California would not execute O. J. Simpson, but …. he couldn’t be that confident that the State would not execute his son. So, to cover, O. J. lets all the evidence point toward him. Out of love for his son or because he is a textbook narcissistic sociopath or both, it doesn’t matter. Where double jeopardy certainly applies to O. J., it just as certainly doesn’t protect the kid. Now, he wants to talk about it, choreographed as it might be, because of the psychological bent. What if, not on screen, but in another venue, something slips out and it all falls together? This latest O. J. scheme could just backfire on him. And, that would be a good thing.
The Juice is a national hero to the hip-hop community. Could you imagine what would happen if he was put in prison? Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would be screaming bloody racism. The reason the Juice isn’t rotting in prison is because of his wealth. If he were a poor black man, he would definitely be in jail. When it came to legal representation, there is no contest! The Juice bought the best legal defense team money could buy at the time! How would a poor black man fair in a murder trial? He’d be stuck with a public defender who would do a half-assed job at keeping him outta jail.
Let’s face it, in America, if you have money, you are above the law.Yet another reason this country sucks.
“We should remember that OJ was indeed found not guilty, however that’s really hard to stomach. The best thing we could do as a society is to ignore him completely.”
IMHO, the most cogent comment of the thread, pmom. The title of his book–no matter what it’s about–sickens me. One would think someone who was “absolutely, postively, 100%” innocent would be a little sensitive about using negative public perception to sell a damned book.
Ignore him and ignore it.
Will: Public Defender’s offices nationwide are understaffed, underfunded and their caseloads are overwhelming. In Southern California, they’re expotentially overburdened. “Half-assed” is probably overating the defense your subject, (black, white, hispanic, you name it), would receive. Your point is certainly well made.
Unless and until the situation improves, it’s not going to get any better. It’s just going to get worse.
P.S. Regarding OJ’s guilt, I’m really uncomfortable with assuming the guilt of someone who’s been acquitted, even in a fiasco like that trial.
OJ, however, seems bent on destroying the benefit of the doubt.
Which country would you prefer to live in Will? The vatican?
Please, tell me what country doesn’t suck in your opinion.
Rage, thanks for the nice comment!
Rm, I want whatever it is that you’re smoking.
Well he WAS acquitted.
That said? This stunt is beyond the pale.
That’s why it will make Fox a bloody fortune. Sad commentary on the salacious nature of our society.
PM :
LOL. I’m going to take that as a compliment….I think! :)
Peemom,
Our country claims to have “Equal justice under the Law.”
Apparently they forgot to tell you that “equality justice” depends on how big your bank account is! In effect, rich Americans are “more equal” than poor Americans.
The O.J.Simpson trial only solidifies my argument that the American Justice System is a farce!
Will
A farce? Well that is a little harsh.
Troubling too coming from a young guy studying law!
It’s a good system. It just needs some attention……ok a lot of attention.
Will you be doing pro bono work Will?
A farce too harsh? In my opinion, they deserve worse. There is great personal benefit doing pro bono work, Im looking to work for free for the conservation of our national parks. That’s what I’d like to do if fate permits. I have much respect for the Green Party, they seem like they actually care about their agendas more so than our traditional parties do.
I do agree with you Will on that. The system is absolutely set up with the advantage being on the prosecution As much as everyone hears about the criminal’s rights, that’s really just not the truth.
But it is still better than most places in the world. You’re a conservative Will, do you think people are going to vote to give more money to make defense attornies?
And RM, it wasn’t meant to be anything bad, just was a really interesting perspective. So of course take it as a compliment. :D
Will: No, the judicial system is not a farce …. it is broken. And you, and people like you, are the ones who can change it. You see the flaws and desperate problems that are facing the system. Demand from your representatives from the local level to the White House that they take your money and mine away from bullshit “pork projects” and fix what’s wrong with our system. Can it happen overnight? Nope. Can simply throwing money at it fix it? Nope. Will it ever be perfect? Hell, no! But make the bastards understand that one of their tasks is to attack these problems, or we’ll kick their asses out and find people who will. And elect and support non-lawyers for elective office, so that the “tunnel-vision” that exists can be broadened into viable across-the-board changes. We need affordable access to justice just as much as we need affordable access to health care. It’s not enough to just bitch about it … that’s easy. Fixing it is going to be tough … but it has got to be fixed and the fixing has to start now, or it will tumble into the farce you mentioned. We’re only one step away right now.
Will
VERY commendable of you to want to defend the national parks! There are MANY organizations that could use the help.
As to our Justice system?
We have two lawyers on the forum in GMC and Vaughn. Seek them out.
I remember a line from a movie.
“Well we made this situation and we are not helpless.”
Three, actually. While I hate to leave such great company, two hours sleep last night is catching up on me fast. And JR is right, Will … pro bono work can be one of the highlights and most rewarding parts of your future career … and the need exists across the board in every field of the law. Good luck to you. Good night.
PoliticalMom:
As a prosecutor, certainly I’m biased. But the system is not set up to favor prosecutors; on the contrary, the rules of evidence, statutes, etc. are generally construed AGAINST the State.
No, prosecutors win most of the time for a more simple reason: the defendants are guilty, and we can prove it. We get to pick our cases. If I don’t have a case where I don’t think I have a solid chance to win, with admissible evidence, I don’t file. Period. In other words, the cases generally that get filed are those where guilt is not truly in doubt.
Any prosecutor how does not have a fairly high conviction rate doesn’t know how to pick his cases. And extremely high conviction rates simply mean that you decline the close calls.
I know that public defenders are overworked and often not the best legal help. Fortunately, my experience here is that the PD’s in my jurisdiction are quite competent, vigorous, and zealous. And while in some cases – the high profile, or particularly complex case – the quality of legal representation (AKA dollars) matters, in most it doesn’t as much as you think. Lawyers like to think we are difference makers. Usually we are not.
Cases are won and lost on their facts. If they are with you, generally, you win. If not, you lose. There are those exceptions, OJ being one; rarely is there a case where guilt was so clear cut. But the jury didn’t care – they simply let him off as “payment” for all the injustice done to blacks. That injustice is real, but is not an excuse. One does not cure injustice by doing an injustice.
“Not guilty” is a legal judgement, not a factual or moral one. He’s guilty. He’s not innocent.
Will – Why would you enter law if you believe the system is a “farce?” The system is the people in it. For all its faults and imperfections (it is made up of people, with our faults and imperfections, after all), it is the best in the world. There are parts of our system I disagree with as well.
But provide me a better alternative.
I agree with rm; the system isn’t a farce, it is broken; to fix it will require deep examination of what the body politic’s real needs are; access to affordable legal representation is certainly high on my agenda.
Will: pro bono work can be very satisfying or very frustrating. It depends upon the client. I join with GMC in questioning why you are in law school if you believe the system is a “farce”. Perhaps your goal is to be involved in the political process, and you see a law degree as a requirement (as did several of my classmates). If so, good luck. It may well be you will change your mind once you are out.
GMC: what can I say? Your exposition on prosecutorial discretion is spot on. Having spent my early years doing some defense work, I can say with some assurance that prosecutors generally go to trial with the cases they feel are winnable. Your comment on high conviction rates is specifically precise and, in my experience, quite correct.
Folks, facts win (or lose) cases as a general rule. Yes, jury nullification can happen, e.g. O. J. case. No matter how highly paid the attorney; no matter how skillful; if the facts, as contained in admissible evidence, is against the client, in the absence of jury nullification or some other non-legal social “theory”, the client is going to lose just about every time (bungling by the other side excepted :D).
With that said, a client who has resources allows his/her attorney greater latitude to: 1) discover other “facts”; 2) challenge the other side’s version of the “facts”; 3) do mock juries before trial to see where the strength and weakness of one’s case lie; and 4) allow the employment of non-lawyer professionals, in appropriate cases, to develop alternative theories for the conduct/actions of the client.
A final thought on being a criminal defense attorney. In the words of a very successful and wise older attorney with whom I had the honor of working for a few years, “Vaughn, you have to look at criminal defendants as an intellectual exercise. You should not worry about the guilt of your client, for 99% of them are guilty, or the prosecutor wouldn’t waste his time; 100% will lie to you about it. Your job is to make sure the system works, in that the prosecutor meets his burden of proof; that all evidence to be introduced by the prosecutor was obtained lawfully; and that if there exists a valid defense, it is presented vigorously and forcefully on your client’s behalf.” I tried to keep that in mind in the day when young lawyers (under age 35) in Wichita were subject to taking criminal appointments from the municipal court.
Sorry about the length; but wanted to make my points.
Vaughn:
I couldn’t agree more – and the defense bar and I get along well. We simply remember a couple basic things.
1) The defense bar’s job is to hold the State accountable as Vaughn describes; make sure evidence was legally obtained, put the State to its burden, etc. In the long run, an unchecked State is a greater threat to liberty than the criminal. Hold us to the burden required.
2) No matter how adversarial a case may be (and tempers do flare, angry words are spoken from time to time, as lawyers are passionate about what they do), such disagreements are limited to the case. Be professional. When the case is over, the adversarial temperment is over. Have a beer afterwords and talk about case, kids, baseball, etc. It means practicing respect, even for and especially for, those you may disagree with personally or professionally.
I often wish we could do this here on this blog.
GMC, point two; couldn’t agree more. Hard to explain sometimes to clients who, after hearing heated exchanges in court, or in negotiations, etc. then see the two adversaries later having a beer, etc., wonder if they were “sold out”, especially if the matter went against what they perceived as “winning”.
No, I don’t miss the courtroom.
Ah Vaughn – I love it. The thought of practicing office law and rarely or never going to court bores me to tears.
Jury trials are the fun part! We put in the hours of preparation, writing, research, etc. so that we GET to go to court. It’s an adreneline rush – like being on stage.
But to each his own. Enjoy what you do.
Having been “expert” in legal cases I know that a similar situation exists there – I might go out for a beer with my counterpart on the other side after everything has been settled. Also, we are often members of the same professional societies and licensed by the same state agency.
GMC, that’s what it’s all about; enjoying what you do.
hmmm, as you have experience as an “expert”, do your ‘clients’ misunderstand the after court meeting with the opposing “expert”, or does that ever come up? When I refer to ‘clients’ I’m not referring to the attorneys, but the parties themselves.
Generally they are OK with it. One thing I explain to them is that I cannot change the facts anyway – all I can do is explain them. I am not going to go in and say 2+2=3 just to try to win a case. In fact, I have hit others who HAVE tried that. They don’t usually end up having a cold one with me …
GMC I didn’t realize you were an attorney. I hate to argue with experts, because obviously, I can’t win that argument now can I?BUT… LOL.
What I meant by disadvantages, were money, the system that although in theory is innocent till proven guilty, it’s really not. Most expect that if charged, they are guilty, just as you did here.
Can you really say that you don’t know prosecutors and judges who are more interested in their images than whether or not they’re prosecuting an innocent? I can tell you I’ve lived on both sides of the law.
Note your own words here “If I don’t have a case where I don’t think I have a solid chance to win, with admissible evidence”…why didn’t you say “if I have a case where I believe the person is innocent..”
I’ve had all kinds of things that have happened to me in life, where the evidence sure would have me look guilty, but being completely innocent. I know that everyone has had a similar experience. But we do have to have a standard, you can’t just go on a feeling. Conversely, you can have total guilt with no evidence too.
PMom;
As you wrote:
“if I have a case where I believe the person is innocent..”
That’s the beauty of what I do. If I am not convinced that the defendant is guilty, I have the authority, indeed the duty, to dismiss the case. I don’t have to explain it or justify it to anyone (except my boss, of course). I get to do the right thing, period. I’m expected to do so.
In the case where I’m convinced the person is innocent, it’s easy. I dismiss.
Are there prosecutors who are after conviction rates? Sure there are. But the way to ensure that is to pick your cases and only charge the slam-dunks. Sometimes even they will bite you, but not usually.
I’ve been lucky enough to have been ON two a juries (pre law school). And argued many times before one. I’m absolutely convinced that jurors, for the most part, take that “innocent before proven guilty” admonition seriously; I’ve had jurors tell me that they were personally convinced of guilt but didn’t think that the State met its burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
So yea, despite the problems of the system, it works. It’s not perfect. It has its problems.
But show me a viable alternative; at least in the criminal context.
I agree with you GMC, I said it in a post somewhere up above, that we do have the best system in the world but that we could make it better.
Some on the jury might take innocent till proven guilty seriously, I absolutely would. But after being a blogger, I’ve learned a whole lot more about how people’s minds work. Whereas I used to think that most people would feel that way too, now I know differently. There are some very seriously judgemental people out there who cannot put themselves in someone else’s shoes or see a different viewpoint.
I would add (as a civil libertarian) that defendants are frequently presumed guilty by everyone in the process (see Vaughn’s post above), and this can shortchange their defenses. In the extreme, I know of death-penalty cases where the public defenders have been drunk, slept thru the trial, did no investigation etc.–and the appeals courts didn’t find any of these as grounds for a new trial! No, I don’t have the exact cites right now. . .I was reluctant to join this discussion, due to the time-consuming documention necessary to “prove” my point. . .but I can get them.
Prosecutorial misconduct, of course, also occurs, maybe not in GMC’s district, but in America nonetheless.
The problem is not with the system, but the failure of some to live up to its ideals, and the lynch-mob mentality of too many, who see the trial as a mere formality. And those who repeatedly attack ‘activist’ judges who insist on the state playing fair are making sure that injustice will remain long into the future.
And it’s still uncomfortably true in America that being black has unofficial probative value, even when the most ethical prosecutor is trying the case.
GMC, I have had the distinct honor and privilege of serving on one jury; ironically, it was after 24 years of practicing law. It was a DUI case, by the way; I joke that the attorneys ran out of preempts before they could get rid of me!
My fellow jurors took the judge’s instructions very seriously, especially the ones concerning the presumption of innocence and beyond a reasonable doubt. All the jurors felt that the defendant had indeed been driving under the influence of alcohol; all felt that the prosecution had not been able to prove the allegations as to time and place beyond a reasonable doubt; thus, acquittal on the DUI. There was a conviction on a related charge.
I declined to serve as the jury “foreperson”, as I didn’t want to be seen as being an influence due to my profession; and, as I alerted my fellow jurors, I did not speak until all other members of the panel had spoken, just felt that was fair.
So, the system, albeit imperfect, works; at least most of the time. I consider my short service on a jury to be one of the most satisfying experiences of my adult life, and was honored to serve with so many other citizens dedicated to the system.
For any who care, the link discusses a web site established by the Goldman family where a “protest petition” may be signed:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2662324&page=1
Rage:
Yea, misconduct happens too. I don’t think my district is special. I just think prosecutors are a bit special. We face a frustrating criminal justice system and the highest standard of proof in the law. And we do it for relatively low pay in a profession where better money can easily be made. (I know, I’m biased)
I also know, and I think Vaughn can back this up, that what the appellate courts term “prosecutorial misconduct” is often mislabeled. “Error” would be a better word, but the Pros. MisC. label got attached, it stuck. When a defense attorney screws up, it’s “ineffective assistance”; when it’s the court, it’s “judicial error”; when it’s a prosecutor, it’s called “misconduct.” Sounds worse than it often is.
I can tell you that every prosecutor I know has one nightmare: convicting the innocent. NO ONE wants to do that. There is no interest in it, no benefit to it. No promotion for it. We make errors, certainly. We are human, with limited knowledge. But no one I know seeks to prosecute the innocent.
Sitting here, waiting for a client who is running late, so I don’t have to miss all the TV sports tomorrow…GMC is correct; a lot of what is labeled as “prosecutorial misconduct” is, indeed, error; reversible error, but error nonetheless. “Ineffective assistance of counsel” is also, in many cases, error.
Having known a number of prosecutors in my time, I can also vouch for GMC’s description of a prosecutor’s worst nightmare. Given the sample of prosecutors I have known, there is nothing that haunts them more than the thought of convicting an innocent man.
A war story, if you’ll humor me: the most important case I’ve been involved with was in the service; a court-martial; the accused was charged with premeditated murder, and subject to the death penalty. Early in, the local base prosecutors determined that, in their opinion, the charge was unwarranted, and so advised the Base Commander (the convening authority). This decision was overruled by the major command (SAC in those days), and the case proceeded to trial. Following the acquittal by the court, on the basis of pure accident, the lead circuit prosecutor was very relieved, as he had become convinced of the lack of a case supporting the charge during preparation, but was not free to move to dismiss given the command pressure. Later, over “adult beverages”, he told me that he had not slept for three days, worrying about the case.
Now, the civilian world doesn’t work like that, as GMC knows; but, I use the Captain involved to illustrate the point he made about NO ONE wants to convict an innocent person.
Have a good weekend, everyone; sounds like my client coming in the door.
Have a good weekend VT – I’ll be missing the games – working …
;(