Jewish World Review June 9, 2004 / 20 Sivan 5764

Dan Abrams

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

When money talks, celeb defendants walk: High-profile defenses outdo even typically powerful prosecutions | Defense attorneys are always complaining about the power and endless resources of the prosecution while the little defense team is always at a significant disadvantage. Often that is true, particularly in cases where defendants are assigned public defenders with limited budgets.

However, it is also true that when the rich or infamous are on trial, this becomes an entirely different ballgame.

The Scott Peterson case serves as a prime example of this situation. Prosecutors Rick Distaso and David Harris are hard-working public servants and adequate lawyers. Distaso gave a sufficient opening statement against Peterson laying out a chronology of Peterson's suspicious activity in the hours surrounding his wife's disappearance.

Yet, when you compare it to Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, the prosecution doesn't seem all that adequate anymore. Geragos wove together a far more compelling story. Not because his case is better, but because he's just a better lawyer who has devoted significant resources to this case.

Those who watched the manslaughter trial of former NBA star Jayson Williams made similar comments about the lawyers there. And it may turn out to be true in the Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant cases as well. Even in the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecutors were clearly outfoxed by a well-funded defense team.

Defendants have built-in advantages in the system. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors, and judges tell jurors that if something can be interpreted in two different ways, they should interpret it in the way most favorable to the defense.

Generally, itís only the defense that can appeal a verdict that they donít like. Prosecutors canít. So when the attorneys for the defense are also better, sometimes even better funded, itís easy to see why the defendants often have an unfair advantage. Itís the best system in the world, but itís particularly good for those with a lot of money.

Donate to JWR

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Dan Abrams anchors “The Abrams Report,” Monday through Friday from 9-10 p.m. ET on MSNBC TV. He also covers legal stories for “NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw,” “Today” and “Dateline NBC.” To visit his website, click here. Comment by clicking here.



© 2004, MSNBC