Posted By:
Kenny ColeTBob,
I presume that your post was in response to mine. When it comes to criminal matters, I don't really disagree with what you said. I practice in Oklahoma, the middle of the Bible-belt. With respect to criminal defendants, there has always been a rather pronounced do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do, hanging mentality around here. While I don't doubt that 9-11 and OJ made it worse, it existed before those two events.
Moreover, as you noted, newspapers can exacerbate the problem. That is certainly true here. The paper with the biggest circulation in this state, which we call the Daily Jokelahoman, is a rag. It is run by a bunch of right-wing zealots who make Dubya look like a liberal. I sometimes wonder if the paper's editors don't goose-step into their offices in the morning, thrust out their arms, and shout "Sig Heil" at each other before beginning their daily routine of trying to suppress all viewpoints other than their own. When it comes to an accused, the Daily Disappointment is great about trying and convicting him/her in the court of public opinion well in advance of trial. I can't argue with your view about the effect of the press on criminal defendants' rights. Unfortunately, I think you are correct.
However, the purpose of my post was not to extol the virtues of the criminal justice system. I was simply trying to explain to Jay that mathematical certainty wasn't required to win a civil suit and that eyewitness testimony that something did or didn't happen was proof, even if there was contrary testimony on precisely the same issue.
I also said that jurors are usually pretty good at cutting through BS and seeing things as they really are. At least in civil cases, I think that is generally true. Admittedly, jurors' vision can get blurred if the plaintiff has dirty laundry and the bad evidence comes in. However, even then, I would still trust their ability to reach the right result over that of many of the judges around here. Most of my friends who do criminal defense work feel similarly. It may be different in your neck of the woods though.
Back to the situation at hand. Am I correct in understanding that while PSA supposedly has cameras in place to video their intake employees and prevent precisely this type of occurrence, it cannot come up with a tape of this particular transaction? That seems a little odd to me. If that is accurate, it seems to me that a spoliation of evidence issue may exist. If it does, you might get the benefit of an inference that had the video been produced, what it showed would have been unfavorable to PSA. That sort of inference can be quite helpful at times. Just a thought.