"And Justice for All"

A Price Tag on Justice

The Giovanni Reid story left me questioning our system of justice. Ask Oxford.com defines justice as “the administration of law or some other authority according to the principles of just behaviour and treatment.” And in addition, Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution says that the accused has rights, one of them being the right to a speedy trial. Since I have never studied law, I would need some clarity on what constitutes a speedy trial.

Given that a then sixteen-year-old Reid had to wait a year and a half before his trial commenced, I must deduce from this that my assumed definition of a speedy trial is incorrect. Why? Because for me to be right would mean that a supposedly just system denied Mr. Reid his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Moreover, I might then mistakenly believe that it was done as an intentional and vindictive act to ensure that if found guilty, that the recently turned eighteen-year-old would then be eligible for the maximum sentence under the law.

The VI Amendment also says that the accused shall enjoy the right to counsel. In the case of the indigent person, that usually means a public defender or court-appointed attorney. And in all fairness to them, many are usually overworked and juggling several cases at the same time. If my presuppositions are correct, this could suggest that the poor client is at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Because, unlike the person who pays out of the pocket, the cash-strapped client can not demand of counsel how to spend money or how much time to devote to his/her case. This can place the destitute defendant at a disadvantage, and in turn, present an unfair and uneven playing field when it comes to the type and/or level of defense that can be waged.

In America, we embrace the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Yet, time and again we have seen how the media has unfairly set the stage for a court of public opinion. This crafty way of producing sensationalistic headlines and nightly news' lead-ins, can only help but to set the public's mood, which of course can work either for or against the accused. The O. J. Simpson trial is a case in point. Prior to his trial, there were opinion polls asking for the public to decide on guilt or innocence. Media reports informed the public on how the results had been broken down by race. Several took the bait. By the time the trial got underway, the serious gravity of double murder had been reduced to an ugly and insensitive public display of racial animosity.

Unlike the Simpson trial, the Reid/Bennett trial did not have several attorneys representing them with nationally recognizable names. But, they did have one thing in common - sensationalistic headlines. G-u-i-l-t-y! was implied in both cases. The negative publicity might have helped to set the stage for the public's heightened fear in the Reid case, and a need to address past and present wrongs in the Simpson case. If these premises are true, then it might help to explain why in both cases the juries seemed to have unfairly disregarded testimony and crucial evidence before they rendered their verdicts.

The chief evidence presented at the Simpson trial was DNA, which can either include or exclude a defendant. In the final analysis, Simpson was included as a suspect. Conversely, in the Reid case, there was no laboratory evidence presented and the Commonwealth's key eyewitness never described anyone fitting Reid’s description as a possible suspect. Hill couldn't even identify the light-skinned Reid as one of the assailants in court. He was seated before her at a defense table.

When Reid's attorney, Michael Wallace, asked Ms. Hill whether or not she considered Reid to be dark skinned, she responded, “no.” Furthermore, she subsequently offered without prompting from anyone, “and neither is the other one.” Presumably, she was talking about Bennett, Reid's co-defendant who was also seated at a defense table.

Simpson, who was found not guilty, denied any involvement despite circumstantial evidence that might have suggested otherwise; such as blood and fibers, and not to mention his cut and badly bruised left hand (file footage from various t.v. news networks). In addition, his suspicious-acting behavior before his arrest (eluding the police in a slow-speed chase to avoid arrest) only stoked the already smoldering embers of suspicion of guilt). Although suspicious-acting behavior does not make one guilty of a crime, it nonetheless does not help to diminish suspicion when other elements have already pointed an arrow in your direction.

Contrariwise, Reid was convicted solely on suspect testimony. However, I must nevertheless assume that he was judged by a majority of his peers, that is, a cross-section of fair-minded people who reflected the community in which he lived. Since Reid's trial did not have a change of venue, I am left to believe that his jury might have been predominantly black, though not necessarily, since ethnicity does not factor into the definition of “jury of one’s peers.” (www.law.com) But, say for instance that Reid had, had a predominately African American jury fifteen years ago, would it have mattered? Does ethnicity equate with fairness?

The old Jim Crow courts taught us that because a majority of the jurors might look like you, do not necessarily mean that you will be treated fairly in a court of law. When Caucasians who were thought to have been Negro sympathizers were on trial for whatever trumped up charge, a jury of their peers usually found them guilty despite evidence to the contrary. But yet, if that same defendant had been on trial for the murder of a Negro, the same bigoted jury of his peers would more often than not disregard evidence pointing to his guilt and set him free. Does freedom mean justice? Or, does justice mean freedom and/or confinement?  

Both the Simpson and Reid verdicts beg the question, what is justice? Since I was not in the deliberating room for either case, I can't claim with certainty that fear or social climate influenced their outcome. But, I can wonder to myself whether or not the

Simpson jury confused DNA and other substantial evidence with the defendant's fame, money along with the undisputed fact that African Americans are more severely punished when they murder a white person. And, I can also wonder if the Reid jury turned the volume up too high on the thought that “it could've been me,” and then later on the rightful tune, “this will not be tolerated,” so much so that they drowned out crucial testimony for later deliberations. What a travesty of justice, if true in either case.

Is this what we call “Truth and Justice the American Way?” Would a just and fair system allow for juries to supplant trial testimonies and evidence in first degree and felony murder cases with extraneous matters? Though freedom for both men was on the line, Simpson, who had name recognition and was in a better financial position to pay attorneys’ fees, was allowed to produce a throng of witnesses (character and experts) to testify during his trial. Yet, when the indigent Reid asked that his character witnesses be allowed to take the stand, not one was called by the court to testify.

One has to question why the bag lady in the Reid case, who supposedly “saw most of all” of what happened (It is still unclear what was being referenced in this statement. Maybe Richard King believed that the bag lady could validate his story to the police that he was not near or on the same street as the shooter, since she was more than likely on Bainbridge Street along with him and the other two young men when the shot rang out.) was never identified and hauled into court to testify. Or, was she? And, what about the black woman who approached the interns wearing a windbreaker? Did Reid's attorney not know about the women? Information on both (?) women was included in police interview records. Were the women actually one and the same person?

Do you think either woman would have been overlooked or summarily dismissed had she been a part of the Simpson scenario? Would this crucial element have been ignored if Reid had been a paying client? By the way, Reid's mother told me that he was convicted by a majority white jury. Did Simpson buy his freedom? And, does Reid’s family have to bet their house in order to pay for justice? If freedom for the wrongly accused is predicated on race, fame, money, and social climate with no regards to just behaviour or fair treatment, then justice cannot be for all.

Charlotte A. Williams, Writer

cwms©2005