PART II
Here are some of the comments and replies from last weekend:
12 white men (0.00 / 0)
Are they inherently biased?
BMG: Reality-based commentary.
by: Bob @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:15:28 AM EST
Not inherently, but in this case verifiably (0.00 / 0)
Bob, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that a panel of 12 white men is inherently biased. But a lawyer in this day and age would be nuts not to raise bloody heck if it looked like that was going to be the composition of a jury for a Latino accused of rape. It is well known that people in a homogeneous group feel licensed to say things they might never dream of saying in a more diverse group.
But the problem in Ben’s case goes much deeper than that. In 1987, three years after the conviction, a young AP reporter named John King, who would go on to become the CNN White House Correspondent, started calling up jurors from Ben’s trial. One of them, William Nowick, made the startling revelation that another member of the panel had made bigoted remarks before the trial and during deliberations. Nowick put those into an affidavit. The allegedly offending remarks included: “The Spic is guilty just sitting there, why bother having a trial,” and “Spics screw all day and all night.”
Why do you think people like Deval Patrick and many others got involved with this case? Because Ben is such a sweet talker? I don’t think so. The 1991 SJC ruling in Commonwealth v. LaGuer was a landmark decision in favor of Ben. But the SJC didn’t overturn the verdict, instead punting to the trial court judge who said he just didn’t believe the juror. (It’s a bit more involved than that, but that’s the gist.) That hearing was written up in the May 1994 issue of Esquire Magazine. Look it up. It was a farce.
Please take a look at these two YouTube clips and I think you’ll have a better idea of what I’m talking about:
Part I Part II Actually, I’d like to put them up as new post, maybe you’d do me the favor of front paging them.
The point is that former Assistant United States Attorney General for Civil Rights did not become interested in this case for idle reasons. It’s an important case and it needs to be taken seriously. The DNA added a wicked twist, which spiraled off into the governor’s race. Right now, if we are going to understand this tangle we need to start advocating for an independent examination of that DNA test.
I enjoy the dialogue and am looking forward to your thoughts.
by: Speaking Out @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:54:23 PM EST
I’d like to follow it up (0.00 / 0)
If the retrial in 2007/8 had a jury of 12 white men, could it still be fair in your opinion?
And I do want to take a minute to appreciate your unyielding graciousness in this conversation Speaking Out — you are a class act and a great voice for your cause.
“The election of 2006 was a call to change – not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country” — Speaker Pelosi
by: sabutai @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 16:39:49 PM EST
jury selection (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the comment. Graciousness on all sides is always appreciated.
As for your question, I wouldn’t want to prejudge the jury selection process. If Ben’s lawyer, James Rehnquist, for instance, with access to all the legal mechanisms at his disposal to ensure that, to the satisfaction of both sides, a fair panel would be selected, then I’d be okay with that. Having said that, I doubt very much that it would be an all white male panel, for the simple reason that the jury pools in Worcester County are much more diverse than they were back then. But if that’s the way it worked out in a fair and open process, then fine.
More comments and questions are welcome.
This is per the official affidavit of William P. Nowick:
<
p>
“One juror, Joseph P. Novak, remarked about the defendant, “the goddamned spic is guilty just sitting there; look at him. Why bother having the trial.”
<
p>
Moreover, during the jury deliberations, there was much unsubstantiated specualtion about how anyone could have raped someone all night. This same Joe Novak stated that “spics screw all day and night,” and agains alluded to the defendant’s guilt.
<
p>
“The jury deliberations were plagued by racism.”
<
p>
My (John Hosty) Comments: Any one of the issues that surround the Ben LaGuer case would normally be enough to invite a full inquiry, but to have all of these issues in the same case without any relief is suspicious to say the least.
<
p>
I don’t think that people were deliberately out to frame LaGuer so much as they rushed to find a suspect and quell the hysterical public outrage. The focus since then has been to cover their own asses for not do a better job of finding the real culprit.
<
p>
I am white, so I can’t speak for my Latino and Black brothers and sisters. Perhaps some of you could speak up and give us what you would think about the fairness of a trial that had jurors speaking in this nature?
What a nice surprise it was to visit Mark Bail‘s blog Granby 01033 this morning to see this:
Thanks again Mb, the support is much appreciated.
Thanks also to the Valley Advocate for publishing this week the article I had on the MetroWest Daily News opinion page relating to the connections between Ben’s case and the State Police DNA lab.