Court Overturns Verdict Over Buttons

[Pangloss]

Just last week I was ranting about how the far right has been over-the-top in its criticism of the Judiciary and blaming everything in sight on "activist judges". Then the far left goes and makes their case for them.

 

On Friday the 9th Circuit court of appeals overturned a 1995 murder conviction because relatives of the victim wore buttons with a picture of the murder victim on their clothing during the trial.

 

No, really.

 

Here's a link to a news article reporting the appeals court verdict:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/04/08/state/n172951D73.DTL

 

Reuters/NY Time article (requires registration):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/national/10BADGES.html?

 

Apparently the state can appeal to an 11-judge panel, or re-try the case.

 

The one dim light of intelligence came from the dissenting judge:

 

Here, the buttons were three to four inches in diameter and, except for the deceased victim’s picture, there was nothing else on them. The buttons conveyed no “message.” As the state appellate court stated, “The simple photograph of Tom Studer was unlikely to have been taken as a sign of anything other than the normal grief occasioned by the loss of a family member.”

 

Further, it is difficult to distinguish this case from the routine situation of a deceased victim’s family members, without buttons, sitting as a group in a courtroom during a trial. Jurors in such a trial surely would recognize the group for what it is. The addition of buttons worn by them showing only the victim’s photograph would add little if anything to any possible risk of impermissibly prejudicing the jury.

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm not going to say anything either way, except that I wouldn't want to be on trial with a possibly biased jury.

[Pangloss]

Well neither do I, but I guess what I'm saying above is that I don't see how that can be the case here.

 

The family members actually testified at the trial, about the value of the life of the victim. If that can't be construed as prejudicial, I don't see how wearing buttons in the gallery can.

[Coral Rhedd]

Well neither do I' date=' but I guess what I'm saying above is that I don't see how that [i']can be[/i] the case here.

 

The family members actually testified at the trial, about the value of the life of the victim. If that can't be construed as prejudicial, I don't see how wearing buttons in the gallery can.

 

I support victim impact statements during the sentencing phase of a trial. The sentencing phase is different in some states than the part that determines guilt or innocence. I know of no state in the U.S.that permits such statements prior to the jurors deliberations upon the defendant's guilt or innocence.

 

If you know of such a state, which one?

[Pangloss]

I see your point.

 

But I wonder if the main point is clear here. Nobody seems interested in discussing it, and that either means that (a) it's not very interesting, (b) people agree with the court's decision and don't want to debate it with me, or © nobody wants to take issue with the 9th Circuit for ideological reasons.

 

The question being raised is not whether bias is a bad thing, but whether or not the presence of 3" buttons depicting a photo of the victim constitutes prejudicial information for the jury. In other words, does it constitute an unfair bias towards conviction regardless of guilt?

 

If you were on the jury, would you see that as a reason why you would need to convict in spite of the evidence? Or would you see that as a reason to take the trial seriously, and nothing more?

 

Am I the only one here who's seen 12 Angry Men?

[Coral Rhedd]

I see your point.

 

But I wonder if the main point is clear here. Nobody seems interested in discussing it' date=' and that either means that (a) it's not very interesting, (b) people agree with the court's decision and don't want to debate it with me, or © nobody wants to take issue with the 9th Circuit for [i']ideological[/i] reasons.

 

I think it is interesting that no one thus so far has found it that interesting. I suspect that the jury did not find it that interesting either -- unless there are some indications to the contrary.

 

The question being raised is not whether bias is a bad thing, but whether or not the presence of 3" buttons depicting a photo of the victim constitutes prejudicial information for the jury. In other words, does it constitute an unfair bias towards conviction regardless of guilt?

 

Families of victims (who are not going to be witnesses) are allowed to sit in the court room. Sometimes they tear up. As long as they are not making a scene, judges generally allow them to remain. It is unlikely that the jury would not know they exist or be able to speculate upon their feelings. If jury members were focused upon such buttons rather than the evidence at hand, they would be very poor jury members indeed.

 

If you were on the jury, would you see that as a reason why you would need to convict in spite of the evidence? Or would you see that as a reason to take the trial seriously, and nothing more?

 

I would not even see it as a reason to take the trial more seriously. There are no greater or lesser victims. I would consider the evidence as presented in trial. That would include the demeanor of the witnesses. That would not include the demeanor or apparel of the audience.

 

Am I the only one here who's seen 12 Angry Men?

 

I liked the old movie better.

[Douglas]

On Friday the 9th Circuit court of appeals overturned a 1995 murder conviction because relatives of the victim wore buttons with a picture of the murder victim on their clothing during the trial.

Would you expect anything less from the 9th circuit?

 

I guess if I were guessing, I'd be guessing that 85% of the right wing gripes concerning activist judges, come from decisions made by the 9th circuit.

[Tetrahedrite]

But I wonder if the main point is clear here. Nobody seems interested in discussing it' date=' and that either means that (a) it's not very interesting, (b) people agree with the court's decision and don't want to debate it with me, or © nobody wants to take issue with the 9th Circuit for [i']ideological[/i] reasons.

For the record, I find it absolutely ludicrous that a murder conviction can be overturned in this fashion. However, I was not at all suprised that this did happen. As the dissenting judge pointed out, the pins were just a way for the family to grieve, and I really don't think it would have biased the jury at all. It really seems like common sense should have prevailed here.

[Pangloss]

Well I guess the next logical questions would be: Is it a good thing or a bad thing for judges to do this? Should they be strict interpreters of law, or is it legitimate for them to make broader interpretations? Where exactly should the line be drawn?

 

Congressman Rick Santorum, speaking on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday, talked about the possibility of Congress setting more restrictive limits on the judiciary branch under the auspices of article three of the Constitution. I was a little surprised by this so I looked it up, and sure enough it says that Congress, at its discretion, can create (or presumably eliminate) "lower courts", meaning any court other than the Supreme Court. (I suppose they had to be created by somebody, as the framers obviously didn't create the 9th Circuit to cover California and Hawaii!)

 

This sounds to me like cause for concern, if Congress is going to begin creating and eliminating federal courts for temporary political reasons.

[Douglas]

Well I guess the next logical questions would be: Is it a good thing or a bad thing for judges to do this? Should they be strict interpreters of law' date=' or is it legitimate for them to make broader interpretations? Where exactly should the line be drawn?

 

Congressman Rick Santorum, speaking on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday, talked about the possibility of Congress setting more restrictive limits on the judiciary branch under the auspices of article three of the Constitution. I was a little surprised by this so I looked it up, and sure enough it says that Congress, at its discretion, can create (or presumably eliminate) "lower courts", meaning any court other than the Supreme Court. (I suppose they had to be created by somebody, as the framers obviously didn't create the 9th Circuit to cover California and Hawaii!)

 

This sounds to me like cause for concern, if Congress is going to begin creating and eliminating federal courts for temporary political reasons.[/quote']Was congress talking about federal courts, state courts or both?

 

It seems to me that the 9th circuit is the leader in the "outrageous decisions" department. I think they lead the league in supreme court overturns.

 

Is it a good or bad thing? Where should they draw the line? Good question.

If a decision defies logic and reason, it's bad.....as in the example stated above. Of course, who decides what logic and reason is, clearly the 9th circuit must've thought they were logical and reasonable.

 

How about this, I think there's 11 or 12 circuit courts of appeal (including Puerto Rico), suppose we asked them how they would have voted on the above topic, if 2/3rds of the total judges voted opposite of the 9th circuit, they are then overturned. If this happens 3 times, the entire 9th circuit are impeached.

[Pangloss]

It's an interesting idea. I think at one point, according to one of those articles I linked above, 95% of their annual decisions were being overturned by the Supreme Court. That's pretty insane. Other circuits average something like 50%, which seems statistically logical.

 

A law like that could present an interesting scenario. It's not generally well known, but the concept of judicial review (by which the Supreme Court decides of a law is constitutional or not) is not actually in the Constitution -- it's implied. In fact, it was created by an act of judicial review -- the case of Marbury v Madison. In other words, the justices just did it, establishing a precedent of judicial review that has never really been challenged. If a law like that was passed, it would surely be tested in the Supreme Court, and could end up testing judicial review itself.

 

This could conceivably create a constitutional crisis, since surely the Supreme Court would decide in favor of judicial review, and the question then would become whether or not congress would abide by the decision, since it would go directly against their powers under article three of the Constitution.

 

A nasty conundrum. But I'm pretty sure that further analysis will reveal a lot of holes in the logic here somewhere. I'm certainly no lawyer. (grin)

[atinymonkey]

I support the judges decision on this, but not the action as a result of the decision. The buttons, while not likely to affect the outcome of the trial, were a contempt of court. For instance if the family members had shouted out the victims name during the trial, they would have been removed from court.

 

The badge were unnecessary and intended to illicit something from the courtroom (whatever that effect was is in itself moot) which places the family in contempt of court. Only the Judge was in a position to make a decision on the affect of the badges on the court, and obviously the decision was either that buttons had a prejudicial effect or that an example had to be made that the judicial system was not open to influence of any kind.

 

Personally, I would take great offence at any act designed to influence a courts decision. The law is reason, free from passion. The Judges decision was to protect the law at the expense of the trial. The system of justice should not be manipulated at any level, certainly not overtly.

 

Perhaps I hold the law above the rights of individual expression, and it could be argued that one was more important than the other. However, to my mind the implementation of the law often causes offence and this is just an example of the self righteous ignoring the law to their own detriment.

[Pangloss]

But was that an attempt to influence the decision of the jury? In what way? The family has no idea whether the accused was guilty or not. Aren't they just asking for justice in the generic sense?

 

I'm not really that naive, I'm just making the point here that we're assigning motive and intent without actual proof, and that's a dangerous thing. If it's possible that their statement was merely a plea for justice, then don't we have an obligation to assume that that's the case until proven otherwise?

 

Or is this moot, because the rights of the accused are more important than the right of free expression of a victim's family, even when said expression cannot directly be shown to cause bias.

[Pangloss]

That's not agitation, by the way, although it might look like it. Just trying to spur a little more discussion on it.

 

Here's another thought: How would you feel about this scenario?

 

A woman goes on trial for killing her husband, a long-time spousal abuser. During the trial a victim's rights advocacy group, including their leader, a prominent political figure who's face is 100% familiar to every potential juror (assume for the sake of argument that the jury must know him and the position he stands for), shows up at the trial and sits in the audience every day. Nothing is said by these individuals during the trial, and no buttons are worn, but their presence is clearly registered in the faces of the members of the jury.

 

Bias?

 

Difference from the above?

[Coral Rhedd]

I support the judges decision on this' date=' but not the action as a result of the decision. The buttons, while not likely to affect the outcome of the trial, were a contempt of court. For instance if the family members had shouted out the victims name during the trial, they would have been removed from court.

[/quote']

 

I don't believe it works that way atinymonkey. In the U.S., it is solely at the judge's discretion to decide what is contempt of court. The assumption is that it is his court and he has control of it. (To look at a famous case where it is widely contended that the judge lost control of the trial, study the demeanor and rulings of Judge Lance Ito in the O.J. Simpson, almost all of which was televised.) If a judge loses control of the court or makes bad decisions, then the judge is held responsible through the appeals process. In other words, no legal blame can accrue to the family unless the judge gives them an order they refuse. If the judge had said, "Take off those buttons!" and they did not comply, they could then be held in contempt of court. Had I been a judge in that trial, I would have made them remove the buttons.

 

Personally, I would take great offence at any act designed to influence a courts decision. The law is reason, free from passion. The Judges decision was to protect the law at the expense of the trial. The system of justice should not be manipulated at any level, certainly not overtly.

 

Nice in theory, but justice is often manipulated. And the more money one has, the easier it is to manipulate it.

 

Perhaps I hold the law above the rights of individual expression, and it could be argued that one was more important than the other. However, to my mind the implementation of the law often causes offence and this is just an example of the self righteous ignoring the law to their own detriment.

 

In my country the four basic freedoms are freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. These are in what is called The First Amendment to the Constitution. I believe they are the backbone of all American freedom and I hold absolutely nothing above them. We definitely differ here.

[Coral Rhedd]

But was that an attempt to influence the decision of the jury? In what way? The family has no idea whether the accused was guilty or not. Aren't they just asking for justice in the generic sense?

 

I think it is a safe bet that the intent of the family was threefold:

 

1. To memorialize the victim.

2. To gain the press to their side.

3. To influence the trial.

 

Emotions can run very high and most often the families have already made a decision that the defendant is indeed guilty. They can generally express these feelings to their heart's content outside the context of the courtroom. What they express -- even whether or not they contain their emotions -- is under the power of the judge inside the courtroom.

 

As human beings the family was not doing anything improper. The judge alone decides what they may do -- and even wear -- inside the courtroom.

 

I'm not really that naive' date=' I'm just making the point here that we're assigning motive and intent without actual proof, and that's a dangerous thing. If it's [i']possible[/i] that their statement was merely a plea for justice, then don't we have an obligation to assume that that's the case until proven otherwise?

 

That is why I have not said that I can know exactly what was in the minds of family members. Perhaps the buttons were a plea for justice. It is impossible to know without interviewing each of them personally what their specific motives were.

 

Or is this moot, because the rights of the accused are more important than the right of free expression of a victim's family, even when said expression cannot directly be shown to cause bias.

 

In the past, survivors of victims (who are also victims) had no voice in the courtroom. This has changed in recognition of the fact that they too suffer and that they can make a contribution to the jurors' understanding in the penalty phase of the trial.

[Coral Rhedd]

That's not agitation' date=' by the way, although it might look like it. Just trying to spur a little more discussion on it.

 

Here's another thought: How would you feel about this scenario?

 

A woman goes on trial for killing her husband, a long-time spousal abuser. During the trial a victim's rights advocacy group, including their leader, a prominent political figure who's face is 100% familiar to every potential juror (assume for the sake of argument that the jury must know him and the position he stands for), shows up at the trial and sits in the audience every day. Nothing is said by these individuals during the trial, [i']and no buttons are worn[/i], but their presence is clearly registered in the faces of the members of the jury.

 

Bias?

 

Difference from the above?

 

I would feel fine -- especially if that were an official role for the advocate. It is one the roles of the victim advocate to support the victim/the family of the victim in court. This is part of the law in most states. Victim advocates are both paid and volunteer staff of sheriff's departments, police departments, and prosecutor's offices all over this nation. If the advocate is there in an official capacity and obeys the rules of the court, then the judge cannot -- without some major reason -- evict him. This is part of law.

 

BTW, that is one very hypothetical victim advocate you have constructed. Usually their role is incredibly low key. To become a public figure like that would take extraordinary circumstances. The public generally has little fascination with victims and their families -- and, by extension, victim advocates.

 

Victim advocates educate the community, train others to be supportive of the needs of victims, support victims and their families, advise on the legal system and rights and available funds, and interface with other agencies. They do not directly speak to the defendant's guilt or innocence inside the court and they are rarely vocal about individual cases. As a victim advocate, the most difficult part of my role is when victims or their families ask me why a crime occurred. What they really mean is "Why me?" or "Why my loved one?" One tries to be comforting, but the simple fact is that these things happen. They are often quite random and it is impossible for a normal person to fathom some crimes and some criminals.

 

(Court-Appointed Special Advocate's for children or Guardian Ad Litems have a different role that does not apply in the case we are discussing.)

[Pangloss]

The example was really more of a point about ideology.

[Douglas]

That's not agitation' date=' by the way, although it might look like it. Just trying to spur a little more discussion on it.

 

Here's another thought: How would you feel about this scenario?

 

A woman goes on trial for killing her husband, a long-time spousal abuser. During the trial a victim's rights advocacy group, including their leader, a prominent political figure who's face is 100% familiar to every potential juror (assume for the sake of argument that the jury must know him and the position he stands for), shows up at the trial and sits in the audience every day. Nothing is said by these individuals during the trial, [i']and no buttons are worn[/i], but their presence is clearly registered in the faces of the members of the jury.

 

Bias?

 

Difference from the above?

No problem here. The attendance of the victims rights advocate is fine, just as the attendance of an equally known capital punishment advocate is Ok by me, along with the attendance of a well known severely abused male who had killed his wife and found to be not guilty by reason of justifiable homicide. All that, and each ideologue wearing his/her own focus group button.