Los Angeles, California
September 3, 2013
(Original date)
*(Denotes change or new information added to original blog)
**UPDATE(Denotes NEW information added to blog after publishing of original blog)
The prosecution of Johannes Mehserle (in the Oscar Grant case) and George Zimmerman (in the Trayvon Martin case) reveals that Black male victims of murder cannot depend on white prosecutors to fully protect their rights.
In both cases, after an adverse ruling (which tended to deny the respective Black male victim his right to a fair trial) was made by a judge, the prosecutors refused to appeal the ruling (which, in turn, denied the Black male victims relief that probably could have resulted in a greater punishment for the white defendant), even though they had a right to appeal and could have appealed the rulings.
In Trayvon Martin's case, judge Debra Nelson ruled that the prosecution could not raise the issue of "racial" profiling in the case. Even though, in my view, racial profiling was the most significant issue in the case, especially as it related to the second degree murder charge. Yet, the white prosecutors refused to appeal her ruling to a higher court. This was absolutely a disservice to Trayvon Martin and his family, and had Trayvon been an actual client of the prosecutors, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Nelson also made some jury selection rulings regarding the seating of certain jurors. In one case, the ruling involved the seating of certain black jurors, that is, she upheld a defense challenge to their seating, and they were not seated. The prosecution did not appeal this matter either. And, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder by a white jury (with the exception of one non-white juror).
In the Oscar Grant case, judge Robert Perry dismissed a gun enhancement ruling by a jury (which resulted in no punishment for Johannes Mehserle, the defendant in the case, for using a gun to shoot Grant in the back--killing him). The punishment Mehserle received, a two year sentence of incarceration (and serving about 11 months), was simply for killing Grant by any means. Perry also, in purportedly granting Mehserle a new trial, found insufficient evidence of an intentional use of the gun once again, which resulted in Mehserle's acquittal of the manslaughter charge, in fact and in law (though not in language). The prosecution team did not appeal either one of these rulings by judge Perry. So, basically, Mehserle has walked.
Again, in both the Martin and Grant cases, the white prosecutors refused to appeal rulings, significant or monumental rulings, that directly affected the white defendants' (with Zimmerman being deemed a white Hispanic) punishment for killing a Black man (and Trayvon Martin was a minor). In both cases, the white defendants received little or no punishment and walked; reverting back to the pre-1960 years. So, the question is why didn't they appeal? While only the prosecutors and their bosses know for sure, their (prosecutors) actions dictate either no empathy, sympathy, or concern for the black male victims, or a greater degree of sympathy, empathy, and concern for the white defendants (because they--the white defendants and the prosecutors--are both white). In either case, it is the Black male victims who suffer the lost of a fair trial, and the white defendants who escape punishment and fair justice. So, basically, the prosecutors act as defense attorneys for the white defendants. In street vernacular, that's called a "sellout". Both the Martin and Grant cases were sellouts by the prosecution. The prosecutors were required to appeal to protect the rights of the Black male victims and their families, and they didn't. Thus, Black male murder victims, especially those killed by white defendants, cannot depend on white prosecutors to "fully" protect their interests or rights.
So what's the solution? It seems to suggest that Black male murder victims (especially those killed by white defendants) should be represented by Black prosecutors, that is, "real" or authentic Black prosecutors--not fake or Uncle Tom ones--when their cases are tried before a jury. And, these Black prosecutors must be allowed to represent the interests of the victims, as well as the People of the State, zealously. And, this would mean and include appealing an issue whenever it was deeemed necessary to fully protect the rights of the People, the victim, and the victim's family. This would likely mean implementing a goal-oriented recruitment program for statewide Black local prosecutors. Even if it means having that "one" Black prosecutor in the prosecutor's office just to represent Black male murder victims (especially when the victims are killed by a white defendant) whenever that type of case arose (in addition to him representing other clients when there are no Black (especially male) murder victims. This, in turn, should create more jobs for Black lawyers, who, more than likely, have been left out of the employment pool in most prosecutors' offices. In this way, they can be intentionally, and legally, let in. It would be legal affirmative action based on an identified need. And, if the government wish to pretend that it really is concerned about the rights, especially the constitutional right to a due process fair trial, of a Black male victim murdered by a white defendant, it should be the leader in advancing such a strategy or program.
The fact that the above discussion is even necessary proves that we are far, far away from a so-called post-racial or colorblind society. We are so far away that the terms shouldn't even be mentioned at this time. In fact, our current state of affairs suggest that our nation is moving away from a post-racial or colorblind society rather than towards one. For examples, Christopher Dorner(police (LAPD) racial discrimination), Oscar Grant(police (BART) racial discrimination), Trayvon Martin(citizen racial discrimination), Dr. Christian Head (university racial discrimination)(a Black physician racially-discriminated against by UCLA--case settled for $4 million), and myself (a Black lawyer)(judicial and court racial discrimination--CA)(my case is on-going and about to enter the next phase). These are just a few examples. I'm sure there are other examples known by others. But, the bottomline is we are nowhere near a colorblind society, so we should be concentrating on eradicating present-day racial discrimination rather than pretending that it doesn't exist. And, it doesn't appear that this nation, per our leadership, is prepared to do that. See, e.g., the Justice Department's delay in announcing whether or not it will prosecute George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle for the murders of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively; even though there is clearly a legal and moral basis for the Federal prosecution of both Zimmerman and Mehserle.
But, this blog is about white prosecutors' failure to zealously represent Black male murder victims and their rights (specifically in the cases of Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin). Prosecutors' offices around the nation, where the offices are dominated by white prosecutors (which is probably the case in the majority of prosecutor offices throughout the nation) should be contemplating solutions for the problem, including the solution suggested here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The integrity of the presiding Judge over the both cases, whose actions brought about this whole controversy surrounding the outcome, has to be questioned, as to whether they had acted to securing the public, because obviously those Judges biased opinion which shown an aberration to justice being done, such behaviour cannot be in accordance to governments enactments of the laws.
Clearly, there is misuse and abuse of power, by misinterpreting the law and t law and then siding with a known offender. As a concern, this does stands out as that which should be given more serious attention by a higher authority, due to the fact that such an action creates mistrust in our Justice System. Their sense of doing judgements has shown an outrageously strange practice, which does not help, as it is not in accordance to that which is permitted by laws.
Since justice were not served, one is only left to believe that it is quite possible that those particular judges must have viewed themselves as the only people having superior intellect, in their court, reasons as to why they have made such an error in judgement. Furthermore, why they had initiated such ill will towards the one whom had been destroyed may very well be because their position as judges made them feel that they was above the government, therefore, they did not have to be in subordination to the government enactments of laws.
It is a requirement that in any rational state of holding government appointed office, officials do show integrity, in this case within the courts. When the state tried a case, however Judges whom are found to have acted by showing partiality to someone who had committed a crime, it is a breach, as it does not tend to serve to distinguish that which is morally right from wrong as a commitment for doing justice, in the communities.
What George Zimmerman and Mehserle done by killing an unarmed young black male, is an illegal act, actually it is hideous. Therefore, no reputable judge who does his or her job with the integrity and professionalism required for being a good judge of character should have acted by showing such ill humour and rationalizations to something that we know is wrong, under the law, then making such excuses to justify the offender action.
Furthermore, inasmuch to say that because of the ignorance or indelibly lawlessness which is known to exist within the courts; the reputations of black males are being damaged and scarred then is being us as a scapegoat by some bestial creature of men, after their action shown to have amounted to murder. Furthermore, whilst a white judge sitting to hear the case cannot spot the difference.
“Without prejudice, this shows misplaced loyalty and a misrepresentation of that which constitutes to justice and something most certainly needs to be done, unless the power of our Governments leaders is seen as kakistocracy, by failing to do that which is by principle a contrast between good and evil, as written within the law
Sorry about the errors before, my keyboard is playing up.
The integrity of the presiding Judges in both cases, whose actions brought about this whole controversy surrounding the outcome, has to be questioned, as to whether they had acted to securing the public, because obviously those Judges biased opinion which shown an aberration to justice being done, such behaviour cannot be in accordance to governments enactments of the laws.
Clearly, there is misuse and abuse of power, by misinterpreting the law, then showing partiality by siding with a known offender. As a concern, this does stands out as that which should be given more serious attention by a higher authority, due to the fact that such an action creates mistrust in our Justice System. Their sense for doing judgements has shown an outrageously strange practice, which does not help, as it is not in accordance to that which is permitted by laws.
Since justice were not served, one is only left to believe that it is quite possible that those particular judges must have viewed themselves as the only people having superior intellect, in their court, reasons as to why they have made such an error in judgement. Furthermore, why they had initiated such ill will towards the one whom had been destroyed, may very well be because their position as judges made them feel that they was above the government, therefore, they did not have to be in subordination to the government enactments of laws.
It is a requirement that in any rational state of holding government appointed office, officials do show integrity, in this case within the courts. When the state tried a case, however Judges whom are found to have acted by showing partiality to someone who had committed a crime, it is a breach, as it does not tend to serve to distinguish that which is morally right from wrong as a commitment for doing justice, in the communities. Which in most situations, they would be pressured to resigned.
What both George Zimmerman and Mehserle done by killing those unarmed young black male, is an illegal act, actually it is hideous. Therefore, no reputable judge who does his or her job with the integrity and professionalism required for being a good judge of character should have acted by showing such ill humour and rationalizations to something that we know is wrong, under the law, then making such excuses to justify the offender action.
Furthermore, inasmuch to say that because of the ignorance or indelibly lawlessness which is known to exist within the courts; the reputations of black males are being damaged and seriously scarred, then use as a scapegoat by some bestial creature of men, after their action shown to have amounted to murder. Furthermore, whilst a white judge sitting to hear the case cannot spot the difference. Or under mind the facts, that being black means no justice.
“Without prejudice, this shows misplaced loyalty and a misrepresentation of that which constitutes to justice and something most certainly needs to be done, unless the power of our Governments leaders is seen as kakistocracy, by failing to do that which is by principle a contrast between good and evil, as written within the law.
Post a Comment