I came across some historical accounts of cases where a trial was held by newspaper and the result was a “Guilty” verdict that was later overturned with a “Not Guilty” verdict.
This case, for example, might be compared to the Zimmerman case:
Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot – Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/19/woman-gets-20-years-firing-warning-shot/?page=all#pagebreak
In this case Ms. Alexander has been put away for 20 years under minimum-sentencing laws for “assault with a deady weapon”. She fired the weapon into the ceiling, and in this “he-said”, “she-said”, she says it was a warning shot but the guy, who was violating a “restraining order” just by being there, says she was firing at him.
The judge bemoaned being forced to apply the 20-year sentence under state law and not having flexibility in sentencing.
Maybe it’s too bad he didn’t bemoan all the judges that we are told abuse the flexibility by unleashing obvious pathological characters with suspended sentences or with rulings tainted by corruption.
Maybe he could have lamented the ruthlessness of prosecutors that see winning cases like this as just steps to higher office.
Maybe he could have lamented the mental agility of prosecutions in turning guns into aggravating factors themselves, or the pressure of control freaks who push for using guns to multiply culpability in crimes, as a step toward the ultimate goal of arms confiscation.
So Prosecutor Corey, overseeing this case as well as the Zimmerman case, is apparently at least consistent, second-guessing the motivations after the fact, and presuming to understand and persuading others at what no one can. A jury was apparently convinced, but was kept in the dark on what the sentencing would be.
The principle of jury nullification would justify their “right to know” such things in a particular case, because they could have declared her not guilty. That’s how a jury can provide relief for laws that are unjust, and laws that have been unjustly applied.
Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of a toddler and 11-year-old twins, broke free from what she says was a choke-hold by her husband –who had beat her so bad before that he put her in the hospital on one previous occasion–, escaped to her car, realized she did not have her car keys, retrieved her gun from the car, returned to the house to get the keys.
She only shot the handgun after he continued to threaten her.
I wonder if he got charged for the threats and the violence perpetrated in the same scene. One also wonders whether the jury heard all of this whole telling.
She was so sure of her innocence that she refused all plea-deals.
That’s why in today’s America it’s always too easy for everybody who reads a news story like this to second-guess everybody who was actually involved in the trying of the case and in the story.
“A Cry in the Dark” is a movie that exposes the danger of convicting the innocent based on crowd sentiments and personalities. That is based on a true story of a mother who said a dingo stole her baby, and at the time the commonly held “knowledge” was that dingos never ever attacked humans. She was later vindicated after evidence was found that seemed to corroborate what she said all along.
Then there is the famous Sam Sheppard case that was the true story that many people thought inspired the TV series “The Fugitive”, although there is one report that the series creator denied it, and that has been the subject of at least five books by participants and researchers:
An exhaustive account of that case can be found here:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/sheppard/index_1.html
That’s the case that established the bonafides of F. Lee Bailey as the most famous defense lawyer in the country, and which has commanded public attention into the century following the 1954 murder of the doctor who was first convicted, then declared Not Guilty, then declared in civil court as “not innocent”, but about whom there seem to be a multiplicity of other suspects never charged and five books that declare his innocence.
How many “convicted murderers” have been exonerated by DNA evidence after decades of incarceration?
The difference in the Zimmerman case is the emotional input to declaration on both sides of the issue and the use of the incident for media attention by public personalities who make their living from this kind of attention.
Including Sharpton, who amazingly is included everywhere in broadcast media as a credible voice on any issue involving race, after whipping up hysteria in the Tawana Brawley rape allegations, that were later proven to be false.
I will close this article with a principle that I firmly believe in always rules. It’s not always speedy, but it is inexorable.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. – Galatians 6:7
Also:
Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. – Exodus 23:7
And:
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. – Isaiah 1:18
Related articles
- F. Lee Bailey Was No Tax Court Virgin (forbes.com)
- Drop George Zimmerman’s Murder Charge (Alan Dershowitz) (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
