Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 8, 1993 TAG: 9305100273
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JESSE J. RICHARDSON JR.
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The jury in the trial of the four police officers accused of civil-rights violations in events surrounding the arrest of Rodney King in Los Angeles reached a verdict April 17. First, it is interesting that the media insisted on referring to the trial as the "King trial" or the "Rodney King trial." It was the officers who were on trial, not King.
The verdicts will shape the lives of the accused forever. This observation applies generally to jury verdicts in criminal trials. However, the conduct, both before and after the verdict, of the media, many so-called liberal groups and the black community merit examination in this case as different than typical criminal cases.
In the wake of the exoneration of the same four officers in a similar criminal trial several months ago, and the ensuing civil unrest in Los Angeles, the media, liberal groups and the black community acted shamefully toward this trial. We can only pray that their activity did not sway the jury.
These groups attempted (successfully?) to bully the jury to come to a decision satisfactory to them, unlike the verdict in the previous trial. Even though they did not see all the evidence or hear arguments at the trial, these groups decided that the officers were guilty. They based this decision not upon the law or justice, since none sat on the jury or possessed the requisite facts and law to make such a principled decision. Their decision was based on the color of the officers' skin. Since that color was white, they felt comfortable openly displaying their racism by celebrating the conviction of two of their fellow men.
I pray the jury stood steadfast and deliberated without influence of the bullies. However, the verdict (convict two, acquit two) smacks of compromise that involves the destinies of human beings. Did the jury "cut the baby in half," as King Solomon suggested many years ago? In Solomon's time, society regarded such a compromise as unacceptable. Has society regressed so far as to now allow it?
This suspicion is especially provoked when the burden of proof in the second trial was more onerous than the first. In the first, prosecutors only had to prove that the officers used excessive force. In the second, intention to deprive King of his civil rights had to be proved. Obviously, the two cases cannot be reconciled. One is left asking: What changed the result? Could it be, as the media assume, that the first jury of one Asian, one Hispanic and 10 whites was racist?
This notion that justice is race-dependent was prevalent in discussions about the case. Associated Press writer Linda Deutsch (April 18 story, "Why guilty now? Jury is the verdict") conveys that one white juror said during jury selection that "Black Americans may feel they weren't getting representation on that jury . . ." The notion that ethnic groups may be represented only by "one of their own" is a novel, ludicrous and potentially divisive one. Jury duty does not consist of a popular election. The issue is guilt or innocence, not race. So long as men are judged or segregated on the color of their skin, racial equality will not exist.
On the other hand, perhaps the second jury was coerced to convict by the specter of more riots. In the words of Ms. Deutsch, "[t]he first jury didn't suspect their verdict might trigger rioting. The second jury knew that all too well . . . " One of the jurors was quoted as saying that the sight of riot police on the streets was "kind of scary." Scary enough to influence the verdict?
I do not attack the present jury system in criminal law. I accept any verdict, from a jury of the accused's peers, as justice, or as close to justice as today's society may attain (once the appeals process is exhausted, of course).
Similarly, the media and the black community refrain from criticizing the jury system itself. They love the jury system, so long as it yields politically correct verdicts. Even then-President Bush in the first trial and President Clinton in the second improperly voiced their opinions on the validity of the jury verdicts. Folks, either accept the jury system and the results it yields or reject it totally. No middle ground, accepting the verdicts you like and rejecting the ones you don't, exists.
I reserve special concern for clergyman who helped turn the system into a carnival. People avowed to forgive and people who should be known for circumspect judgment turned to blind racial hate and uninformed, knee-jerk judgments. The God I learned about in church would not advocate such behavior. In fact, the media and certain ministers resembled the masses crying for Barabbas, and for Jesus Christ's crucifixion. (I do not similarly compare the police officers to Jesus Christ.)
Fortunately, the system is not result-oriented, but designed to give defendants a fair trial. Regardless of what the media would have us believe, the key point is whether the defendant had a fair trial. Given the media coverage and the very real threat by certain groups that riots likely would occur if "acceptable" verdicts were not handed down, no one can honestly answer the fair-trial question.
A scary image lies on the horizon. A new bully has moved into the neighborhood. If you fail to yield to his wishes, he riots. If you give the verdict he demands, you sacrifice more than your lunch money. You sacrifice justice in this country, substituting an uninformed popular (or media?) vote for a jury of your peers. The lynch mob has returned. Just pray that you are not its next target.
Jesse J. Richardson Jr. is a Winchester lawyer.
by CNB