A Tale of Three Trials

Three communities across our nation. Three totally different "crimes". Three different legal actions. One common travesty.

--“Scooter” Libby’s perjury and obstruction conviction.

-- The Duke Lacrosse Player’s rape case, ultimately completely dismissed.

-- Paris Hilton’s release from jail after 3 days on a 23 (or 45) day sentence.

America’s Justice System (or Legal System, if you prefer) used to be one that other nations looked up to, and downtrodden peoples tried to get their country to emulate. It used to be based on impartiality, a system that was “blind” to all things but the law. In short, our nation was one where we jealously adhered to the “Rule of Law”, something we still try to implement around the world in places like Iraq, but apparently something we’ve forsaken here at home.

While the former assistant to the Vice President, Mr. Libby, was found guilty by a jury of his peers, one can argue that the case should never have been pursued in the first place. One can argue forcefully, that were it not for politics, he never would have been indicted and tried. There was no crime, something the “Special Prosecutor” new before he ever interrogated Scooter Libby. Nearly all witnesses contradicted other witnesses, and even themselves over the course of the Grand Jury appearances, interrogations and the actual trial. It boils down to a he-said-she-said case. And again, there was no original criminal act for him to obstruct or perjure about in the first case. Injustice was furthered in the way the sentencing was conducted, resulting in an unreasonable prison sentence for a man who arguably sacrificed much to faithfully serve his country in the first place.

Westward, in North Carolina, over the past year or so, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of three privileged college students being hauled in front of the populace, ridiculed and “tried in the media”. They were expelled from school, (2 of them, the 3rd graduated just prior to the indictment) and the lacrosse coach forced to resign. Almost from the beginning, there were huge questions about the veracity of the claims by the alleged victim. Eventually, the DA, Mr. Nifong, was forced to drop some of the charges, then hand the case over to the State Attorney General. It came to light that Mr. Nifong suppressed exculpatory evidence, and ultimately the State Attorney General not only dismissed all charges, but did so in a manner that clearly indicated that the three young men were innocent (not merely that he couldn’t bring enough evidence to convict). Mr. Nifong now faces possible disbarment; it appears his motivation was political pandering to the black population of his jurisdiction. The three young men are exonerated, but their reputations have been forever tarnished, they and their families have expended considerable amounts of money on their defense, and the populace is jaded towards the criminal justice system.

Going further west still, we land in Hollywood. There, a rich, morally deficient heiress to a vast fortune has run afoul of the law. Busted for DUI, then caught driving with a suspended license and warned, then caught again, she was finally sentenced to 45 days in jail. For some reason, she and her family thought 45 days was too harsh, and ultimately fought it down to 23 days. She “bravely” accepts her fate, and marches off to jail, all the while calling it an “ordeal” and “a hard time” in her blog. After three days of (reportedly) sleeplessness and crying in a “special needs” section of the jail, she is suddenly released, to “home arrest” for the next 40 days, with a monitoring anklet. Her home, by the way, is 2,700 sq ft and $2 million… much nicer one supposes than her cell had been. As I write this, she is due back in court, and it appears that the judge who sentenced her may require her to be re-incarcerated for the remaining 20 days of her sentence.

What does all this mean?

Frankly, I don’t know. But I know it all smells badly.

When a dedicated public servant, one who has served honorably at personal sacrifice, is put on trial more for political reasons than for any true criminal behavior, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine that is concerned about “Civil Liberties”. Isn’t that what banana republics do to the citizens they don’t like or that they fear… put them in jail after a show trial? The liberals scream about some alleged assault on our “Civil Liberties” in a time of war, yet fully embrace a brazen example of the same thing when it fits their desires. They are hypocrites.

When three kids can be used by a power-hungry local prosecutor to further his political ambitions, even in the face of pretty obvious problems in the case from the very beginning, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine. One doesn’t have to be in the political mosh pit of Washington to fall prey to political hit jobs. One only has to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and be the wrong color or ethnicity… and look out. These kids had the good fortune of having parents with the means to put up the fight. What if they had been at some state university, and not had that ability? How many people behind bars today are in reality “political prisoners” in our own land?

When an über-rich, famous person can flaunt the simplest laws by which we live, and get out of paying the very modest consequences, it should send a chill down anyone’s spine. As much as it pains me to say it, Al Sharpton is right about his characterization of the Paris Hilton debacle. Many of us have had months longer than 23 days in conditions much less agreeable than jail (can a deployment into a war zone comes to mind) and not whined about it. When someone can whimper through a couple of nights and blow snot-bubbles and blubber when people come to check on them… and it all causes them to get sprung after 3 days, there is a big problem in our system. Medical problem? No biggie… the jail has an infirmary or arrangement with a local hospital. Get fixed up then get back behind the bars.

“All too often the intersection of politics, law and the media results in a lack of responsibility by practitioners in all three areas…

“For the preamble to our Constitution, our founders stated explicitly the purposes for our Constitution. Listed even before providing for domestic tranquility or for the common defense was the establishment of justice. (Fred Thompson)”

"Equal under the law" "Blind Justice" Fairness, justice and freedom. Are these concepts of the past?

Three separate issues, three separate cases, three separate jurisdictions. One inescapable conclusion: When we subvert our judicial system to the desires of political expediency, fame and fortune, not only do the hapless defendants suffer. We all suffer a loss of an underpinning of our society, the Rule of Law. We need only wonder what "brick" will be next to fall away from the foundation our nation rests upon.


Concerned Patriot (/Rant Off)