Jonathan Turley
Case of the Missing Evidence: Facts are often withheld from juries, which can lead to ill-informed verdicts
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | This year's bumper crop of celebrity trials has exposed a process in which lawyers fight over the evidence to be seen by a jury. While the law often speaks of a jury as the "fact-finder," the truth is that we allow jurors only to find facts that we leave for them, like not-so-hidden Easter eggs in bushes of evidence.
Of course, jurors are often entirely unaware that the facts before them have
been highly manipulated and that some of the most telling facts discussed in
public have been excluded from the trial. It is often not until after a
trial that jurors learn of facts that would have changed their verdict. This
has led some jurors to publicly charge that they were deceived in recent
cases. In four high-profile trials, the exclusion of certain evidence may
well produce such a result — verdicts won not by the evidence viewed by a
jury but rather by evidence kept from it.
Clearly, there are good reasons to suppress some evidence: It may have been
illegally gathered, privileged or inadmissible under such rules as hearsay.
However, judges now routinely restrict evidence that any ordinary person
would view as essential to a well-informed verdict.
Consider the murder trial of actor Robert Blake. The problem for the
government in this case was never figuring out who would have wanted to kill
Blake's wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, but who didn't want to kill her. Even the
prosecutors acknowledged that Bakley "might be considered by some to be what
is commonly referred to as a 'grifter' or 'con artist.' " That raises an
obvious problem for the prosecution, which admits that it has no forensic or
eyewitness testimony linking Blake to the murder.
In a circumstantial case, the existence of possible alternative murderers
can be devastating, so the prosecutors have asked the court to keep Bakley's
past from the jurors, including evidence of potentially hundreds of men
scammed by her in lonely-hearts cons, as well as disgruntled customers of
her past pornography business.
One of the most cited potential suspects is Christian Brando, the son of
Marlon Brando who pleaded guilty in 1991 to killing his sister's boyfriend.
Brando had an affair with Bakley and was reportedly outraged by her
initially convincing him that her baby was his and trying to "game" him over
the pregnancy. In a taped conversation, a clearly upset Brando tells Bakley,
"You're lucky somebody ain't out there to put a bullet in your head." A
former friend of Brando's came forward recently to say that she heard Brando
say, "Somebody needs to put a bullet into that girl's head." He allegedly
said this to stuntman Ronald "Duffy" Hambleton, who allegedly responded
with, "Yeah, that's right."
The prosecutors insist that such evidence has no relevance for a jury
despite the fact that they want another recorded conversation between Blake
and Bakley admitted into evidence. In that conversation, Blake accuses
Bakley of the same types of lies and deception. Yet, unlike Brando, Blake
does not refer to anyone killing her. Moreover, the prosecutors want to call
Hambleton as a witness to testify that Blake asked him to kill Bakley but
bar any questions about the similar statements by Brando.
None of this suggests that Brando is the more likely killer or that the
evidence does not strongly implicate Blake. Moreover, defense efforts to
exclude tapes of Blake raise the same concerns. It is hard to see how
justice is served by keeping such evidence from a jury.
To some extent, these attempts to exclude evidence reflect a lack of faith
in jurors to use their common sense and to weigh evidence. Instead, we tweak
and torture evidence to fit a different image. This turns some criminal
trials into a type of legal bonsai — twisted to grow in a more controlled
shape by the judges and lawyers.
Once legislators and courts began this process decades ago, they became
addicted to the task of tailoring and tucking evidence — at the high risk
of determining the outcome by omission.
Just Monday, in the Martha Stewart trial, the judge barred Stewart's lawyers
from arguing that she is being prosecuted merely for claiming she was
innocent. Yet Stewart is being charged with one count for publicly denying
any wrongdoing and saying that she was cooperating with the government.
Sounds like being charged for claiming innocence, but the judge has claimed
the right to not only exclude evidence but to script defense arguments.
In the case of basketball star Kobe Bryant, the prosecutors are seeking to
exclude evidence that could be highly damaging to the alleged victim and to
their case. The defense wants to introduce evidence that it says will show
that the woman had sex with another man soon after the alleged rape —
conduct that presumably would be in sharp conflict with the normal reaction
of a rape victim. The defense also wants to introduce evidence that the
woman allegedly has taken anti-psychotic medication and twice attempted
suicide in an attempt, they say, to attract her boyfriend's attention.
The alleged sexual history of the woman is barred under Colorado's rape
shield law. This law was meant to prevent the abuse of victims in criminal
trials — a long-standing problem in our courts. Indeed, in some past
celebrity trials, like Errol Flynn's 1942 prosecution for statutory rape,
the victims were publicly humiliated with their prior sexual history. Such
evidence does not advance the interests of justice and deters women from
coming forward.
However, cases like Bryant's indicate that the pendulum may have swung too
far in the opposite direction. Assuming that the defense can show the court
compelling evidence of sexual contact shortly after a rape, it would be
ridiculous to claim that such evidence is not relevant in judging the
credibility of the victim. This would be different from the type of
prejudicial use of sexual history that led to the rape shield law — when
someone's unrelated sexual history was paraded before jurors to show that he
or she was promiscuous. This evidence would go directly to the mind-set and
conduct of the alleged victim during the relevant time frame of the alleged
crime.
Michael Jackson may also soon face a similar challenge from prosecutors in
his expected use of the history of his alleged victim and the boy's mother.
The mother allegedly has a history of drug abuse, shoplifting and an
allegation of assault against J.C. Penney after she was allegedly caught
with stolen merchandise. This evidence goes directly to the defense theory
that the case was motivated by money and opportunism.
American justice has become as natural as treated tap water. Just as we add
"clarifiers" and remove elements to improve the taste of water, we now
"prepare" cases for jury consumption — leaving a jury with only a taste
test of a purified, sanitized and manufactured evidence.
However, crime, like life, is full of contradictions and distasteful
elements. "Clarifying" the evidence is simply a fancy term for manipulating
not just the evidence but the outcomes of trials.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington Law School.
Click here to visit his website. Comment by clicking here.
12/31/03: Celebrity is often its own best defense
12/27/03: U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear
12/17/03: Going for the gold in a competition of the corrupt
11/25/03: Will Malvo jurors spare life of young suspect?
11/11/03: The Black Tax: Of charlatans, crooks and victims and the reparations scam
11/04/03: Sniper case lacks appeal, public lessons of other cases
10/02/03: Is a soldier's life worth more than $650?
08/26/03: One justice wields too much power on today's Supreme Court. It's time to make the top bench much bigger
08/11/03: Don't let jobs grow on family trees
06/26/03: A Ruling That Only Goldilocks Could Love; We still don't know how much weight to give race in college admissions
06/24/03: 'Educating' Congress at the hands of lobbyists
06/12/03: Crooked arm of the law
06/10/03: Defense on lay-away
05/23/03: Innocence doesn't pay, either
05/15/03: A see-no-evil parole system
05/08/03: An American Gulag?
05/01/03: CUNY Law gives grads a cynical parting gift
04/22/03: Congress Must Send Spammers a Message
04/16/03: End Apartheid in the State Prisons
04/07/03: NBC's sacking of Peter Arnett over a critical analysis plays well in Baghdad
03/07/03: Rights on the Rack: Alleged torture in terror war imperils U.S. standards of humanity
02/25/03: How democracy could clear our snowy streets
02/11/03: Sanity and Justice Slipping Away
01/28/03: Quit horsing around, senator
01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/14/02: DESTROYING A FAMILY TO SAVE IT
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02:
05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic