The whole thing was demeaning and disgusting, and as the oft-repeated justifiable French suspicion-turned-cliché about America, a shallow spectacle indeed. One voyeuristic member of the public camped outside the courtroom shed her crocodile tears about the verdict to the nearest camera "because I'm a mom myself." But the fact is, a jury of her peers found differently, confounding her and all who wanted "justice" for the child, and most outrageously, the Idiot Punditocracy itself. Immediately upon the verdict's announcement, they were clamoring on CNN and MSNBC and Fox for the jurors to come out and explain themselves. Fox practically blew a gasket. Unfortunately for our contemporary Panis Et Circenses jackals, the members of the jury had other ideas. They let it be known to a flabbergasted media gathered before empty juror seats labeled "JUROR #1, #2" and on down the line, through the court spokesperson, that they "are just not interested" in talking to the media, and further that their decision is an "ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL, UNEQUIVOCAL NO!" They also requested that the media respect their privacy. (What are the chances of that, hmmm?)
Capping this delicious slam on those who would prejudge a criminal case, having set themselves up as judge, juror and executioner, defense attorney Cheney Mason (love those dudes with notorious first last names) delivered an EPIC SCOLDING to the palpitating network news readers and their legal eagles, struggling to get a grip:
Biased, prejudiced, and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be. This is a PERFECT definition of the Idiot Punditocracy. Moreover, they'll have to swallow their bigotry toward defense counsel Jose Baez, calling him a pedestrian "Columbo" type, and other insults, the next time a Latino attorney takes on a high profile criminal case."I hope that this is a lesson to those of you having indulged in media assassination for three years — biased, prejudiced, and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be. I’m disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this, and I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don’t know a damn thing about. That don’t have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it. Now you’ve learned a lesson. And we appreciate the jury, those of you that have been objective and professional, we like it. Others, we’ll be talking to again."
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
3 comments:
You're entitled to your wrong opinion, I suppose.
People didn't slam Baez because he's a Latino attorney. They slammed him because of his smoke and mirrors defense, throwing wild allegations out there that ultimately weren't even proven in court.
This case shows that our system has failed that little girl. circumstantial evidence is still evidence... And there were mountains of it. Just because the jury didn't have someone saying that they SAW Casey do it, they let her go?
This is what happens when we give too much power to simpletons like the ones on that jury. This was a disgraceful day.
I made no judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the verdict because I made a personal choice to not follow this case. I found it sad and depressing.
My comment was on the public's fascination with the case, which was disturbing to me, and in particular, the media's feeding frenzy, covering it like some kind of sporting event.
Those "simpletons" you speak of are members of the community picked from a jury pool and accepted by the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the judge through a time-honored process that dates to before this nation was born. If you have a problem with the jury system, well, that's another discussion. Other countries adjudicate cases differently. In many of them the judge is the final arbiter and a jury has no say.
But the system is what it is, and it's served us well for centuries. The jurors who must decide whether a person lives or dies are held to a much higher standard than those of us on the outside, with our opinions. That's as it should be.
Here's the opinion of a law professor, with which I agree:
"Doug Berman, a criminal law professor at Ohio State University, said popular opinion came to the conclusion the 25 year-old Anthony was guilty, but that jurors must hold to a higher standard than the average citizen watching on TV.
That standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"In some sense, it's a sign that the system worked well," Berman said. "The job of the system is not to turn this into a Hollywood ending, but to have all the actors in the system do the job to the best of their ability."
Dumb jury. There was more than enough evidence the jury was dumb enough to listen to Baez and all his lies. Really!!
Post a Comment