Because I work in the criminal justice system, some readers ask me why I don’t generally comment on high profile shooting cases that are in the news. I guess I owe them, and you, an explanation.
In the past I worked as a police prosecutor, prosecuting misdemeanor cases. I was a cop for longer than that, and I’ve been an expert witness for the courts since 1979, the one of those three jobs that I’m still doing. As a prosecutor, I was taught what any law student is taught in law school and what every cop is taught in the police academy: We don’t discuss our cases in the press! It will all come out in court!
Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a lot of politically-driven cases where the accusers violate that treaty and use the press as a bludgeon, giving them a theory of the case which paints the defendant as a monster. When one side violates the treaty, the other side is no longer bound by it. I personally believe defense lawyers who don’t speak for their clients when those clients are being falsely demonized are failing to represent their clients in the Court of Public Opinion.
When the defense side needs to be presented to the public under such exigent circumstances I believe it’s the job of the defense lawyers to do that, not people like me. I certainly don’t comment on cases where I’m personally involved until court matters are concluded. But I try not to comment on ongoing cases where I’m not involved, for one simple reason: not being involved, I don’t know the whole story and won’t until the facts come out at trial.
Once the case has been adjudicated, I see it as fair game and am happy to analyze it based on what I know about the dynamics of violent encounters and how they are processed by the system. By then, we have all the facts to discuss and learn from and hopefully keep tragic outcomes from being repeated.
Amen. Your restraint is completely justified and should be universal.
Unfortunately, there are those who use any event to call for “common sense solutions,” eager to push a narrative rather than learn anything. (Present company obviously excluded.)
It’s not just the anti-gunners who comment:
The US state department and vice president are spreading hate in the wake of a murder by a sikh in the uk, with the usual pack of lies.
njk
Yeah that term has really become twisted around and warped
Ditto about your restraint.
The airwaves and internet are chock full of individuals who are pleased to render commentary about events they have neither knowledge of or relevant experience. Plus those who’s intent is to drive a narrative.
You have to protect your status as an expert witness so restraint is called for. As a social issue though, too many times the facts don’t come out in court. Plea bargains are an obvious example but there are others. Witnesses and jurors who lie and are never called to account are a big problem. So are judges suppressing evidence. The latter is often caused by police misbehavior but the solution is to discipline the police, not suppress evidence. Remember Bill Ayers. “Guilty as hell and free as a bird.” And there is the Community Relations Service of the DoJ that every time there is a fraught incident descends to cover things up. In theory, your admonition to defense lawyers is correct but how do you explain the defense lawyer for Derek Chauvin. He did a really good job on cross-examining prosecution witnesses but basically went silent on presenting the defense case. He never presented the defense theory of the case. Was he overconfident, incompetent or did someone get to him. He was the lawyer assigned by the union, not paid by Chauvin.
He was the lawyer assigned by the union, not paid by Chauvin.
In my highly-cynical opinion, this was the key point. Being hired by the union, the attorney’s client is the union, not Chauvin. Therefore, his job is first to protect the union’s interests; defending Chauvin came in a distant second.
In a politically-charged case like Chauvin/Floyd, the union is going to be looking to protect itself and all its other members (in that order), much more than the individual on trial. Any attorney provided by the union is likely to do the same.
As I said, highly-cynical opinion. But I stand by it.
Unfortunately that’s the world we live in now. Crucified without ALL the facts without a care in the world whether it’s true or not. If they’re wrong oh well it didn’t hurt them and we know no apology is coming.
If only most prosecutors, biased media and politicians could muster some of the professionalism and self control you consistently demonstrate, Mas.
Thank you for your leadership.
Well said Mas….
I was trying to think of a solution. If the defense attorney released a very carefully-worded statement, that might help. But, attempting that is like walking on top of egg shells, which are stacked on top of more egg shells. Also, people will just think, “Oh, of course the defense attorney would say that.” Maybe the defense attorney should say, “The facts will come out in court. Right now you are hearing accusations and speculations from the other side.” If that idea (wait for the facts to come out in court) was repeated by the police, attorneys and news media enough times, it may become common knowledge.
I’m probably too optimistic. Emotions are strong.
IANAL, but if I were, I would start any public statements with what you say — “The facts will come out in court. Right now you are hearing accusations and speculations from the other side.” — and follow-up with, “And let me remind your viewers that the normal policy and longstanding legal tradition is to not make public statements regarding cases that are still in progress, and that the prosecutor’s office is violating both by making these inflammatory statements.”
And then, “But since they opened that door,” and give whatever 10-second high-level overview of our theory of the case is, which countermands the prosecutor’s version.
Archer,
Sounds good. You should be a lawyer!
Well said, Mas! It’s interesting…while we DO discuss high profile cases that are currently making news… and offer opinions on Armed American Radio, I have refrained, for 18 years on air, bringing any defendant or person being investigated in a case that has yet to be charged or not…choosing to wait until after such cases are resolved. I want nothing to do with a defendant coming on my show and blowing up his defense because of something he/she said on AAR being used against them in court. And it’s amazing how many times I’ve had to say no to folks under those conditions. Only when a case is resolved or an investigation complete and determined NO charges will be brought, will we happily bring them on air. STFU seems to be the safest bet for all under these circumstances.
As a follow up to my comment about the truth not coming out in court.
“I still think the worst part of this legal dynamic was the judge in the case ruling the video taken by the killer as he murdered his victim was, “too disturbing to be shown” as evidence. The killer recorded himself doing the killing, and that evidence could not be shown to the jury because it was “too disturbing,” yet the jury was tasked with making a decision on whether the accused was guilty or not.”
This is about the Henry Nowak case in the UK. Different country but a lot of the same rules and judicial prerogatives. I have no inside knowledge but this is from a usually reliable source. It apparently was a formal ruling of the court.
Can you cite the source please? I can’t find it.
njk
It looks like the Daily Mail covered it [ https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15867645/Henry-Nowak-murder-reconstruction-Vickrum-Digwa.html ] but it’s behind a paywall. (Because of course it is.)
However, near as I can tell from various commentary, Nowak’s killer may or may not have filmed the actual stabbing, and DID NOT call an ambulance but DID film Nowak suffering and bleeding out, and the killer mocking him as he was dying (“I’m dying,” “You’re not dying,” “You stabbed me,” “No, I didn’t,” etc.), and that post-stabbing video was deemed “too disturbing to be shown” during the sentencing phase of the killer’s trial; he had already been found guilty of the murder.
The Nowak case has, of course, sparked another round of irrational “Weapon-Prohibition” behavior in the UK with people arguing about some artificial blade-length limit. See this news report:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmpymjn8wwo
You see the Leftist mindset at full display here. Note the strenuous efforts being made to shift the focus from the human, who committed the act, and move it toward the instrument that he happened to use. This is prime Left-wing emotional bias at work. Leftists cannot tolerate placing the blame, directly, upon the human agent. Their worldview compels them to always find an external “scapegoat” to blame instead.
Of course, weapons are always a favorite scapegoat for the left. Their standard response is to always (a) make excuses for the human agent that actually performed the evil deed, (b) instead blame the tool used, and then (c) pass more useless “weapon-control” legislation in a vain effort to show the masses that some action is being taken. The fact that the action is ineffective is “beside the point” from the left-wing point of view. The action reinforces their skewed worldview and makes them feel better. That is all they want or need. No leftist ever expects to actually solve a problem. Indeed, the left feeds upon chaos so effective action would be counter-productive, at least, from my cynical point-of-View.
I conclude that nothing effective will be done to actually make the UK a better place to live for the Subjects who live under UK Government Rule. Instead, the people (who are already mostly disarmed and helpless against crime and violence) will be further disarmed and abused in the Left’s puppet-show of social manipulation.
Thanks Archer
I couldn’t find anyone claiming the stabbing was filmed. Still can’t find any reference to “too disturbing to be shown”.
Wouldn’t regard any british newspaper as a reliable source. The bias is very evident and whenever they cover a subject I know about, the facts are wrong and
njk
RE: “whenever they cover a subject I know about”
Be aware of the “Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect” (name coined by Michael Crichton), too. If they’re factually wrong about a subject you know, don’t assume they’re any better on a subject you don’t know.