I seem to be posting only depressing things today! But this has me kinda upset: a friend-of-a-friend was murdered last summer, and this weekend the suspect was acquitted, to everyone’s shock: his semen was found on her, as was his bite mark. From the Post:
September 28, 2002 – A Brooklyn man accused of savagely slashing a girlfriend to death last summer walked out of court yesterday a free man after a visibly upset jury found him not guilty - prompting tears from both sides of the packed courtroom and even a prosecutor. One juror was crying and another just held her hand to her head when they gave their verdict. Louis Poveromo just held his hands to his face when the verdict came in. He said nothing. The man had been behind bars since he was busted a few weeks after Jane Marie Russo’s bloody body was found in her apartment in July 2001. Poveromo admitted he had been on a date with Russo that night, but had left her just minutes before her estimated time of death. Her apartment had been stripped of its sheets, phone and even a plate of ziti, suggesting someone had removed evidence, law-enforcement sources said. He had been facing 25 years to life in prison if convicted. The verdict - delivered after nearly three days of deliberations - prompted Russo’‘s mother to break down. She discovered her daughter’‘s body on July 15, 2001. She and about 15 other friends and relatives of the victim left Brooklyn Supreme Court shocked and saddened. Assistant DA Ann-Marie Mason broke down in tears in the hallway.
—I only hope “Bensonhurst justice” will prevail . . .
I have no idea; my friend is too upset to talk about it. Can’t find much on the Internet, but the verdict seems quite unbelievable, considering the evidence . . .
While it’s understandable that you’re upset, why couldn’t the accused have actually been innocent? That is, he admits he was on a date with her, and presumably that explains the semen present. Perhaps slightly rough sex was involved; hence the bite mark.
What might the jury have heard to convince them that the accused was telling the truth, in other words, and why are you so sure their verdict was wrong?
I want to try and find out more, to see why the jury came in with that verdict, but I don’t know where to look. My friend tells me that “Poveromo was sitting out on his porch last night, smoking joints, drinking beer and laughing with his friends.” Not smart, as I’ll bet some of Jane Marie’s friends are planning to introduce that guy to some fishes . . .
Bricker, some jury members were crying as they gave the verdict. Perhaps some of them thought that he was guilty but they were unable to prove him guilty with a sufficient amount of certainty, and maybe there were details of this case - I couldn’t find them, as the full NY Post article didn’t have any further info - that led many people to feel that he had done it.
Looking at the number of people convicted of murder where their dna wasn’t found at the scene, it would seem to me that there would have to be some very powerful evidence that he was not guilty. I understand you feeling sorry for your friend, but justice needs to be done justly and not to just anyone.
My guess is that the key is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is sometimes a sticking point where the evidence is circumstantial. The jury reaction indicates that they thought he’d done it, but that there just wasn’t quite enough evidence.
EasyPhil, your point about reversals due to lack of DNA evidence is well taken, but do understand that it’s actually exceedingly uncommon. Sadly, there are thousands of homicides each year. Very few of these pose much of a mystery - where DNA evidence makes a difference. It’s true, wrong convictions are appalling (particularly where the conviction results in death row), but there just aren’t very many of them, even under the manifest imperfections of our legal system. That’s why these reversals are reported so heavily: they’re news.
Upon re-reading your post, you misunderstood my post entirely. The point is that killers are convicted without DNA evidence. In this case, with DNA present, there must have been a strong defense indicating that the person was NOT guilty.
Eve, since you have a personal connection here, the position is understandable. But understand also that, as someone hoping to enter the public defender’s office upon graduation, your position will be a nightmare for people like me. We face a repeated presumption in common discourse that an acquittal is automatically equivalent to some monstrous madman “walking” and exploiting “loopholes.” Without knowing what tilted the jury towards not guilty, you automatically presume that he must have done it…on what basis? That he was arrested and tried? Well, as a grandson of a cop, I am told anecdotally that probably 90% of the people who are arrested “did it.” But that’s not enough to justify an assumption about all criminal defendants.
Someday it may be a friend or loved one of yours on the other side of the process, wrongly accused and desperately hoping that the criminal justice system will safeguard them, praying for the jury to find “reasonable doubt”. We tend to relate more closely to the victims and their families, and in your case you have a specific reason, but we must not forget that the primary principle of the criminal justice system is to let 100 guilty men go free before we let one innocent man suffer. The crime is over and done with, nothing will bring that girl back, so his going free causes no tangible harm. Had he been convicted wrongly, that would be an ongoing harm, and so that outcome must be prevented.
I understand your position, and obviously your sympathies must lie where they will. If we knew more about this case, perhaps we could give it a more objective look.
Gee, you don’t need to fucking have Blue the Dog tell you something was seriously fucked up in a trial where the jury is bawling as they deliver the verdict.
Somehow, if people felt that strongly about it, I cannot see the jury being not hung. Is a hung jury an acquittal in that State, or would they really all have had to have said “not guilty” for it to be an acquittal?
This expression:
sure sounds good in a legal philosophy class. But it completely ignores the cost to Society of turning loose 100 thieves, burglars, rapists, murderers, child molesters, and terrorists in lieu of an accidental conviction of 1 person.
However, I think this is truly scary:
By that metric, you may as well let all criminals go free, as their crime is a * fait accompli*, and thus there’s no point? Why bother to try anyone, as the crime is over and done with?
Am I the only one on this freaking Board who sees anything wrong with that? Or is this a case where once again, anything and everything is defensible here?
Good heavens no, Anthracite. That statement bothers me a great deal too.
Preferring a situation where one guilty person is acquitted to a situation where one innocent person is convicted DOES NOT, and hell, SHOULD NOT, mean that the acquittal of a guilty person “causes no tangible harm” and is somehow OK. Even if one considers it the lesser of two evils, it sure as hell isn’t OK.
Let me explain something further before the Fires O’ the Pit start.
An innocent person being wrongfully convicted is a terrible thing. Monstrous, if it is a monstrous crime.
But Society is not perfect. It is made up entirely of fallible individuals, and even if the conditions are ideal, Society only iterates towards perfection.
The age-old expression which puts forth that Society is somehow hurt far more by one mistake than by letting Society itself be eroded further, or even partially destroyed, by the release of those who would openly assault Society and its laws - the “guilty which go free” - makes me angry. Especially because - if Society isn’t perfect, how does polluting it with the guilty who go free help the situation any?
Being found guilty, or even accused, of a crime you didn’t commit, is horrific. This is especially brought home if it happens to yourself. And there must be some serious level of erring on the side of caution by Society, to try and prevent this from happening. But 100:1? That sure seems hyperbolic and silly, and I hate it.
I do find it odd, when I scan Forums here and across the Net, that typically the people who are most likely to use the expression in question (not referring to RexDart, who aside from getting my ire up this morning seems like a pretty good person) - one which seems to champion the rights of the individual far and above those of Society - are also the same ones who will compose multi-page hate-rants and tirades about how “evil” conservatives are for only being concerned with themselves, and not Society.
