The Northwest Herald editorial board weighed in today on Page 9A with its "Our View" that a second trial of Mario Casciaro is warranted. Is it?
Should anyone ever want a jury trial in McHenry County? Apparently, the jury of 12 was just one vote short of convicting Casciaro on murder charges. Few were probably in the courtroom, compared to all those who are following this case in the media. I wasn't, and so my information comes from the Northwest Herald reporter's version of the trial.
That a jury would come so close to convicting on such flimsy evidence is indeed scary. They heard evidence from a convicted, imprisoned felon who got a "deal". His "deal"? Immunity on a murder charge if he'd rat out someone else.
Why should a jury believe anyone who gets cut such a deal? But did it? Did all but one believe the prosecution?
The jury is supposed to ignore all the arm-flapping and hot air from both the prosecution and defense attorneys. Their words are not "testimony". The jury is supposed to rely only on "testimony" on reaching its verdict. As far as the jury is concerned, the attorneys tell them what they are going to hear, and then what they heard.
Is a jury so stupid that it can't figure out on its own what it heard? Before moving to McHenry County, I thought so. After living here a while, I'm not so sure. I've been in a courtroom when a jury heard testimony, ignored it, and was influenced by the arm-flapping and emotional words (not "testimony") of an Assistant State's Attorney. Would that jury have made the same decision, absence the emotional arguments?
At the time I remember thinking that the defendant would be found guilty, because his own attorney wasn't in the game. His attorney was unemotional, logical, rational, slow-speaking; the prosecution was all over the field and was even warned by the judge about a certain reference. And the Assistant State's Attorney got away with it a second time, without penalty flag from the judge. And the defendant was found guilty.
If I were Casciaro and if the case goes to court again, I'd go for a bench trial. His attorney will be even better prepared; he has heard all the prosecution's arguments. And the prosecution has heard none of Casciaro's.
Should there be a second trial? If the prosecution has evidence of a crime, yes. If they have the same weak case? No.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
2 comments:
I'm convinced you can't get a fair trial in McHenry county. I had jury duty with a woman from Harvard who said that she wished she had been on the jury for the Carolyn Cox case because she was convinced that her husband was guilty from what she read in the Northwest Herald. Not exactly an unbiased potential juror.
The testimony of a witness who's been offerred "a deal" cuts both ways.
Jurors need to keep in mind the "gold standard", which is, "beyond a reasonable doubt". The only problem is that few understand how "weighty" that standard actually is.
They must also understand that this standard MUST also be applied to the ACTUAL CHARGE as proferred by the Prosecutor.
All too frequently, the Prosecutor charges the defendant with a maximum charge that usually far exceeds Reasonable Doubt.
In the case of Casiaro, it would be far easier to argue that his acts of that day contributed to what may likely have resulted in the manslaughter of Carrick, and not necessarilly by Casciaro.
That's politics for ya......
But ya gotta go for what you can actually get, not for what looks best emotionally and politically.
Post a Comment