Well, i have no doubt that the “CSI effect” might have had a problematic impact on jury expectations regarding the amount and the nature of physical and forensic evidence.
But surely all juries should expect to see “evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty”? Isn’t that, by definition, how guilt is supposed to be determined?
I think he stepped in it with both feet. The first two quotes are from jurors. If Blake is/was so guilty, the DA office should have been able to prove it. I don’t think he was guilty, just a brainless sap.
“I’m just disgusted,” Blake jury foreman Thomas Nicholson said Thursday. “It appears to me he has no faith in the jury selection. After all, it was his people who helped choose us.”
“If Mr. Cooley … thinks there was enough evidence to convict, then he should spend more time doing his job and less time trying to make excuses,” said juror Roberto Emerick.
This next snippet is more worrisome. Is it being hinted that juries should be punished or scolded for not pleasing the prosecutor???
“There was a failure in this case. It was not my prosecutor. It was not the work of LAPD. It was the jurors didn’t quite get it,” he said, conceding, however, “I could have phrased it differently.”
“But bottom line it was the wrong verdict,” he said. “Sometimes jurors should be held accountable for their mistakes.”
I’m a public defender in a rural part of Georgia. Anytime the DA in my circuit loses a case that is at all high-profile, he either blames it on the jury or on the judge. I got a not guilty in a murder case a year or so ago and he said it was the judge’s fault, because he ruled (correctly) that a certain witness’ testimony was not admissible. Another witness testified to exactly the same thing, so this particular witness wasn’t that important.
I guess it's easier than admitting that your case wasn't that great to begin with or that you or someone in your office screwed up.I think all Cooley’s saying there is, the jury got it wrong so they should expect that we’ll call them on it – I’m not going to blame the DA, LAPD or judge when it was the jury that made the mistake.
I don’t get the impression he’s suggesting he’ll go after jurors.
katie1341, we see the same thing civil-side. It’s human nature, I suppose, to look externally for mistakes. I would be happier, however, if Cooley simply said, “well, we tried. We didn’t have any physical evidence to show he shot her, we can’t find another shooter, and the two guys that claim he tried to get them to shoot her are both poor witnesses because of their history of mental illness and drug use. We did our best, but the jury didn’t see it the same way we did.”
In California, a prosecutor can only bring charges when s/he thinks there is probable cause. So of course Cooley thinks the jury got it wrong. But given how little faith Angelenos have in their government (see, e.g., pay to play allegations, LAPD issues), it’s not surprising that Cooley is trying to turn attention away from the shoddy case presented and focus it on the jury.
Because everyone knows the jury got it wrong. Right?
Cooley’s comments were inappropriate and deserve the attention and commentary they have received so that comments of that sort will not be soon repeated.
The jury system is an essential protection of the integrity of the American Legal system and protects us against cronyism and inbred unfair partial decisions in court by making it possible for civil and criminal defendants to receive a trial by a jury of his or her peers.
Verbal attacks against a former jury panel that might serve to discourage future individuals from undertaking this important service are to be avoided, especially by members of the bar, who derive their livelihood and earnings from the legal system. These individuals have a sworn duty to uphold the laws and to support the legal system in which they work.
Perhaps Mr. Cooley’s comments were only human, but if they were politically based, I believe they were grossly inappropriate. It is not Mr. Cooley’s Role to decide quilt of innocence in an American court of law. In a jury trial that belongs to the jury and only the jury and no fault can be attached. Mr. Cooley’s DA played a role in selecting each and every member of that jury during voi dire and so, any fault he wishes to attribute to the jury goes right back to his own office and their experience in jury selection, a process of dubious ethics at best.
If there is a celebrity effect, that has been true since the dawn of time. But I think stronger instictual issues in this case were at play. Was Mr. Blake a nice man. A victimized man. Was Ms. Blakely a nice woman or an abusive one? Did she entrap Mr. Blake into the Marriage? Was she a user, a con artist as allegations had it? Was there any real evidence against Mr. Blake or was it all circumstantial? Did Mr. Blake act like a criminal at the time of the murder by running or did he go for help? Did the crims happen in a way that would have given him an easy alibi, like on one of his T.V. mysteries, or did it happen in such a way that it was almost set up to make him the fall guy? Was it convievable enough that Ms. Blakely had by her earlier actions created enemies angry enough to get back at her through murder? Did the regularity of Mr. Blakes schedule make her easy to find, given that he had regular favorite eating spots?
Were the prosecution witnesses against Mr. Blake really Credible? Were their any witnesses? Was all the evidence circumstantial? Was in essence the whole case wishfull thinking on the prosecutor’s part in the first place?
If the accumulated answers to all of the above left reasonable doubt in the juries mind, even if they felt Blake might have murdered his wife, they had no choice but to acquit.
In that context Cooley’s comments were completely out of order and he soon realized that. Still, perhaps we should coin a phrase to remind others not to do the same.
Cooleying: attempting to cover up weaknesses in preparation or performance by inappropriately assigning blame for an undesired outcome to another party.
“Mr. Mooney called Hartley on the carpet for Cooleying his Executive Assistant for the Montague fiasco last week.”
Peter
I have been told not to put my blog site name at the end of my posts. So I won’t but you can figure it out. Rappy Easter everyone!
