As many of you probably still recall, Louise Woodward was the British au pair who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter against eight-month-old Matthew Eappen in Newton, Massachusetts way back in 1997.
As I recall, her British hometown was beside itself that she could actually go to prison in the US. A national newscaster, I recall, said it was because they apparently thought our system was corrupt and cruel, or something very much along those lines.
The only thing is, our system is based on their system, isn’t it? And frankly, I think we actually have a few rights British citizens don’t. I know we have the right against self-incrimination, and apparently Brits don’t. And our prison system has been the interest of the more liberal-leaning Supreme Court, in somewhat more recent years. (For example, the Supreme Court often hears cases involving religious freedom in the US prisons, don’t they?) And what about innocent until proven guilty? I could go on and on.
My question is simple and direct: What exactly did the British public think we’d do to poor Miss Woodward if she went to prison? Put her to death by slow torture? (I recall people in LW’s hometown were popping champagne corks at her being set free. Were they really that worried about her?)
Someone fill me in. I am still perplexed by this case.
IIRC there had been a similar case in the UK where a woman had been convicted of killing an infant by shaking - and she was the subject of much national media opprobrium.
Turned out that the expert medical testimony was absolutely nothing of the sort, and the so-called precise statements of force were merely heavily biased opinions - the ‘expert’ turned out not to even have the qualifications, background or experience to make such pronouncements.
The evidence in that particular case was still pretty weak, yet it was the main plank of the prosecution case, but the media intervention in the case was believed to have been a significant factor in the conviction.
It showed us in the UK the dangers of assumptions and trial by media, that some things can seem common sense obvious but actually are not.
Move on to the Louise Woodward trial, and it was almost like a video replay, the atmosphere, the weakness of the medical evidence, the public reaction. I think it was partly our own sense of guilt over the previous case that led us to believe that this would not be a fair trial.
It also had to be said that in both those cases, neither defendant was particularly charismatic, or rather they seemed to reinforce the negative stereotypes that each of us has in us.
ISTR there was also a feeling in the UK that since Boston was settled by a large proportion of Irish immigrants, it would be impossible for an English woman to get a fair trial. At least the Boston news stations reported that.
The comparison has already been made to Amanda Knox. Some people in Britain felt that Woodward was being railroaded for a crime she hadn’t committed because she was a foreigner and the local officials wanted somebody to pin the crime on.
In the common law system, a judge can throw out or lessen a “guilty” verdict if they feel that the facts of the case do not support the conviction that the jury returned. (A *judgment notwithstanding a verdict, or judgment non obstante veredicto if you want to get fancy.) This is one of the few instances where the prosecutor has an avenue of appeal: he can argue that the trial judge was wrong to set aside the verdict. (And that is exactly what happened in the Woodward case. The appeals court upheld the trial judge’s reasoning.)
In the United States, the Sixth Amendment has been interpreted to disallow judges from setting aside an acquittal by a jury. So judges can only modify verdicts “downwards” – to a lesser offense or to an acquittal.
ETA: Oops, as LibrarySpy points out, my memory of the case was wrong. Woodward appealed to the trial court that sentenced her and that’s when her conviction was reduced to involuntary manslaughter (by the same judge that heard the trial.) The prosecutor then appealed that result, which was denied by the appellate court.
My understanding, which is admittedly based on watching British television shows, is that they have the right to remain silent, but, if they remain silent on something they might not be allowed to use it in their defense. If, for example, they don’t say they have an alibi, they might not be able to introduce that at a trial. Surely Cracker hasn’t misled me?
That’s not really a distinction, since silence can be used to impeach notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment. The distinction is that in England and Wales there is no rule against prosecutorial comment on silence. That’s a fairly new rule though.
I believe it means if you say at trial “I was watching the tellie at the time with me gran…” then the prosecution is entitled to say “we asked him about this and he never mentioned it for two weeks after he was arrested.”
Contrast this with the US system, where you cannot mention that the arrestee invoked his right to silence, as it may be used to infer that silence implies guilt. In the USA you have the right to let the police work their butts off then spring an alibi on them at the last minute.
the thing with a lot of countries is that they ahve very negative views of other countries’ prison conditions and the harshness of their justice systems. The USA is notorious elsewhere for very harsh sentences and easily swayed juries, I suppose. The fact that a jury convicted her of a crime, then the judge had to declare the facts warranted a lesser charge, simply proves the point.
