David Camm's murder verdict was overturned today, and there will be a third murder trial.
Read the Indiana Supreme Court opinion.
I find it regrettable that so many opinions about this decision will be proffered within the parameters of what a third trial will cost.
Yes, it will be an awful lot.
Yes, I'd rather spend the money on other things.
Yes, it's frustrating.
But that isn't really the point of justice, is it? Even the most cursory consideration of American history should lead most fair-minded people to concur with this assessment, as written at another local blog:
How many times do we have to convict this guy? The answer is, one time - fairly.
Conversely, if the evidence is valid or admissable, acquit him and be done with it. Either way, do it fairly.
It's always fashionable to bash lawyers and decry the expense of justice in cases like this. There are valid reasons for both these points of view, and I'm not the one to outline the case for how the situation might be improved, although from where I'm sitting, two successive prosecutions have been botched. Where's the rage against the lawyers responsible for the mishandlings, and hence the reversals?
There should be a large element of conscience to all this. Who among us is willing to dispense with the sort of legal safeguards against abuses and errors that were exercised today by the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling? Things like this prove the viability of the legal syystem. At the same time, calculations of justice in the context of Steve Price's nickels and dimes proves just how shallow we can be at times.
Get it right, or let him go.
But feel free to disagree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
One time - fairly. Guess that excludes me from the jury pool.
What amazed me the most was the prosecutor's inability to read or comprehend the plain language of the 1st reversal from the Court of Appeals which made abundantly clear that the evidence of the alleged molestation was INADMISSIBLE. So, as soon as he argued it again in the 2nd trial (even if offered for different reasons, as he claims), it was a no-brainer that the case was going to be reversed a 2nd time.
What I find troubling (and offensive) were Henderson's comments at his press conference that the Court of Appeals were essentially "rewriting Indiana law" as to evidence. Having read both opinions (1st trial and 2nd trial), he should be embarrased by the reversal - but to try to somehow blame it on the appellate judges (who were FOLLOWING Indiana law) shows a real lack of character.
Our system of criminal justice rests upon a fundamental requirement that the prosecution plays fairly and within the rules. The old adage is "better that 1000 guilty men go free, than one innocent man be convicted." Whether we agree or not, quite simply, when the prosecturion doesnt play fairly, no conviction should ever stand.
Even as guilty as Camm might appear. The most interesting part of the opinion was the finding by the Court that even without the erroneously admitted evidence, there was still ample & sufficient evidence to have supported a conviction.
I guess my sense is this. He really does need to be retried. This is a triple murder charge. If he is, in fact, guilty, he needs to spend the rest of his life in prison; and if he is not guilty he needs to have his name cleared.
Issues of molestation and abuse are always going to get convictions even if inferred or implied. Often the mere suggestion that molestation was involved is often enough to get a conviction because molestation is, for most people, so incredibly repulsive. The problem is, if unproven, it becomes a major red herring in a trial such as this. From what I have read, this allegation never gets beyond a potentiality or even probability of abuse, but never proves it. I never want to law school but I even know this can't be used.
Unfortunately, I think most people knew this was going to be overturned the night of the verdict. We can only hope that they get it right the third time.
Post a Comment