The Defense Perspective
First, the kudos. You're an awesome guy and, considering the time you spend on your career, BSF, and this blog, obviously far more hard-working and organized than I am.
But.
It's difficult for me to reconcile the (correct) critique of litigation as a sporting event with your comments regarding the trial of Susan Chiniewicz and the "smackdown" and "tail-whipping" meted out to the DA's office.
In my opinion, the jury likely felt conflicted by opposing expert testimony as to whether the baby (I'll call him Joseph notwithstanding the mother's failure to bother naming him; among other failures) was born alive. Though by their verdict the jury at least seems to acknowledge that this was indeed the case. And they probably took into account her lack of a criminal history and the three children she had at home.
Was justice served? It's hard for me to say it was. She accused what seems to have been a long-term lover of rape in an attempt to avoid responsibility. At least for Joseph's conception. I am aware of no evidence that she ever sought pre-natal care, which makes me wonder what she had in mind for Joseph during the 6 or 7 months she knew she was carrying him. She could have left the baby at a police or fire station (or elsewhere) with no questions asked (as an editor of a newspaper in The Colony, she had apparently written on this topic). She could have opted not to carry Joseph to term and have an abortion (as opposed to leaving Joseph to die in a trashcan).
But regardless of whether justice was served, it seems base to me to characterize the result in terms more appropriate to a lop-sided victory in a volleyball game.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong; God knows it wouldn't be the first time. And I look forward to your response.
Brian:
Thanks so much for stopping by and visiting my weekly ramblings. I think the "sporting event" metaphor I was using in an earlier post referred to how potential clients (and lawyers, for that matter) evaluate trial skills and potential success in the courtroom by looking at a lawyer's won/loss record, which I opined had little practical meaning. Certainly, I don't want to characterize the Chiniewicz trial as a "sporting event" in that the tragic loss of baby Joseph's life is irreconcilable by any standard. However, my intent was to recognize fine lawyering by Jim and Cameron in the case. I often chafe against the D.A.'s office propensity to overcharge defendants and when I see tangible evidence of such, I think it's important to point it out. So, if I offended by characterizing the D.A. loss as a "smackdown," I certainly apologize. But had the prosecutors properly evaluated their evidence and the strength of their witnesses (which is part of their job), the case might have been resolved more quickly and without the public display of such a tragic set of circumstances. Furthermore, was justice served? I guess it depends upon who's perspective we are looking from. From baby Joseph's perspective, no punishment outcome of any sort could make him whole again. From the defendant's, she got off light, if not lucky. From the prosecutor's perspective, they possibly got their feelings hurt, but since 12 good people from Brazos County made the call, they cannot complain about whether justice was done, since the system worked the way it was intended. Nobody was tricked, nobody was lied to. The burden of proof is there to protect us all, and from the system's perspective, justice was served perfectly.
steve
Commenting by HaloScan
