Our government is powerful. It can take everything from you, even your life. We’ve got a few rights that protect us from it, and a few myths that keep us from the truth - and nothing but the whole truth. Let me uncover four of them for you. And, yeah, I’m an actual lawyer.
Myth 1: A good lawyer can get any criminal off
Wrong. Ask Mike Tyson and Martha Stewart. But what about O.J. Simpson? Yeah, he was probably guilty, I agree with you. But “probably” isn’t the standard. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard. That’s how sure you have to be as a juror before you can vote to take away someone’s liberty. Or life. The jury wasn’t that sure. Almost, maybe, but not quite. Probably because of a certain police detective who single-handedly introduced doubt.
I’d also point out that the jury didn’t see what we saw in the media. We think we watched the trial. They actually watched it, every single day, every minute of it. Naturally, if the jurors had just watched T.V. for a few months and then voted, they might have had a different verdict. Sound like a good system?
Myth 2: It’s unfair to the prosecution that some defendants can afford to spend a lot of money on their defense
Ah, another common complaint about the O.J. trial. Lemme lay some facts on you. Do you own a house? Yes? If you’re ever tried for murder your answer to that question will change. The cost to defend a murder case boggles the mind. A situation like O.J.’s, where a defendant actually has a lot of resources to throw toward saving his life and freedom are extremely rare. On the other hand, the prosecution has limitless resources. It can put scores of lawyers on a case. It doesn’t have to hire investigators like a defendant does; it’s got the police force. Many D.A’s offices also have their own investigators. What’s unfair is that not every defendant can put on as vigorous a defense as O.J. Simpson did.
Myth 3: Criminals get off because of technicalities
Technicalities. When I entered law school, I so looked forward to learning about those darn technicalities that let murderers and rapists go free. I learned there are no technicalities. Soft-on-crime judges, idiotic laws, crooked cops, incompetent prosecutors, maybe, but no technicalities.
The whole myth came about because way back when, we had this thing called the Fourth Amendment. It spouted some sort of nonsense about how people shouldn’t have to have their bodies searched, or their stuff rifled through, or their house tossed whenever the police felt like it. ‘Founding Fathers were sensitive, weren’t they? Anyway, the 4th Amendment isn’t a problem anymore. The only protection it used to have was that if the police found evidence during an illegal search, the prosecution wasn’t allowed to use it. That was the Exclusionary Rule. Not much comfort after the police hog-tie you for three hours while they search your house instead of the drug dealers’ down the street like they meant to. Funny how that worked. Criminals would get a big ole windfall if they were illegally searched, and the innocent wouldn’t have any recourse. It doesn’t matter; the Exclusionary Rule is pretty much gone now. Under the “good faith” doctrine, if the police “reasonably” thought the search was legal — suddenly –it is legal. Magic. So now no one has protection against unreasonable searches. Hooray.
Myth 4: Jurors are out of control
Who are these jurors? Well, folks, they are the citizens of this country. They are us. For 99% of us, the only time we are ever a real part of our government is when we serve as jurors. (Yeah, yeah, and when we vote.) If you don’t trust a jury to make a right decision, admit it, you don’t trust anyone to.
But the McDonald’s case! Always the McDonald’s case. A woman spills coffee in her lap and she gets a bazillion dollars from an Alabama jury, and it’s just so unfair to the poor giant international corporation, let’s just totally lose faith in our system of laws. And lose faith in juries. Which means lose faith in each other.
A few facts. Yeah, she got a big award. It was equal to like two day’s coffee sales for McD’s. Does that put it in perspective? It was also reduced A LOT. That never got reported. The coffee that spilled on her wasn’t just hot, at a temperature unsafe and unfit for human consumption. People had been injured before. And she was badly injured. I’m not saying I agree with the jury award. I’m not saying I don’t agree. I’m just saying the jurors weren’t idiots. I can’t say as much for the people who reported that story.
Conclusion
Despite my bitter-like-black-coffee sarcasm, I believe in our system of government. It’s awful, a necessary evil, but it’s the highest achievement humans have every attained. A democratic republic; unique in history; it’s a miracle. Laws that protect us from government, and a jury of our peers as our ultimate judges when we stand accused of a crime. Don’t let those ugly myths turn you away from what is precious.
By contributing writer K. Zuchen
STORY HERE