Here we go again

I don't typically talk about the current events of the day. Rarely do I spend much time with what is hot in legal news. After all, this is the practical blawgosphere. Or so I've been told. But, I love baseball. So here we go again. Barry Bonds has been indicted in federal court in San Francisco.

In a rather detailed indictment returned today, a federal grand jury indicted Barry Bonds of four counts of Perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1623(a) and one count of Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503. The perjury statutes carry with them a maximum of five years imprisonment, while the obstruction carries a maximum of ten years.

Will this be the next O.J. or the next Michael Vick? Only time will tell. But what is certain is that the media glare on celebrity criminal defendants is having a negative impact on the average defendant. I think of it as the negative of the CSI-effect.

I often hear prosecutors complain that shows such as CSI hinder their case because jurors expect the type of scientific, forensic evidence in every case they see every week on television. The problem, at least for the prosecutor, is that not every case has that. Jurors, however, expect that, and when they don't get it, they are more likely to acquit. At least that's what the prosecutors would have you believe. From a defense perspective, does it help having a jury expecting Gil Grissom or Horatio Kane to testify? Sure, because it usually isn't going to happen.

When I say celebrity cases are having a negative impact on criminal defendants, I am referring to the degradation of some of the basic tenets of criminal justice. The prime example is the presumption of innocence.

Everyone will say they understand and can apply the presumption of innocence if asked. But what are they basing that upon? Everyday life. The problem is that every day life so often is consumed by the celebrity docket. You see, for the next six months, the American public will be inundated with the minute-by-minute details of the Bonds case. Most people I know have an opinion about Barry Bonds. That opinion is not just baseball-related. Many people think Bonds cheated. Many people think he has been juicing it for years. Of course he has denied it. Now he has been indicted for lying to a federal grand jury about it. Of course that's an oversimplification, but that's how we like our sound bytes.

The problem arises when the average juror walks into his local courthouse. He now brings that belief with him to jury selection. Sure, he will say he can apply the presumption of innocence, but is he really? Is he simply placing that defendant in the place of Barry Bonds? Or Michael Vick? Or O.J., again?

I think that slowly, we are losing any benefit the presumption carried. All too often I hear people make comments such as "Yeah, I know he's innocent until proven guilty, but come on. Look at this case. How can he not be guilty?' When the celebrity docket risks the average guy in court, we have a problem. Just ask Bob Costas about the presumption.

The O.J. case was the most watched, most discussed, and most impacting legal case of the last half century. And it was nothing but another murder case. It involved no legal issues. None. Yet, when you ask a random person at the bar about the biggest case he's ever heard of, I will bet he says O.J. The negative impact of that case will echo for years, possibly decades. Will the Bonds case be the same? Can the pendulum swing back the other way? Only time will tell, but here we go again.

Comments

[Greg]

I'm not sure exactly where you went with this post. Are you saying that the overwhelming media coverage in these cases leads to people making a judgement before the end of the trial and this is resulting in the suspension of the presumption of innocence? If so, how does this effect the "average guy in court" if he hasn't had the same level of media coverage?

On a different note, I would really like your take on the length of the OJ trial. I agree that it was a straight forward murder trial but believe that his celebrity status, and the prosecution's need for the coverage, turned it into a uselessly long trial. I have always thought it should have been over in a month, or less. Do you feel the huge amount of time was somehow justified due to the complexity of the case??

Lastly, I am a recent reader, but I enjoy the blog.

Gdr

[Matlock]

I think my thinking here is that the average juror is bombarded with coverage of celebrity trials/ cases. Most everyone has their own opinion of those individuals. Generally, from what I have heard most people say, they think those people are guilty.

The next step then becomes when average juror sits on a jury. He now brings with him that preconception of guilt that he associated with the celebrity. Although he will say he can provide the presumption of innocence, that presumption is distorted based on celebrity trials.

I think Bob Costas' comment is illustrative: Well, this ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is an insufferable platitude that is masquerading as high mindedness as if those of us who don’t somehow withhold all judgment need a remedial course in civics