O.J. Gets an All-White Jury: Teacher's Husband Acquitted of Murdering Wife's Teen Lover

Judge Jackie Glass gives her best "hear no evil, see no evil, know no evil" facial expression after ruling that the Prosecution did not remove a black juror peremptorily because of her race.

Okay, these two articles are so good that I thought I would just combine them. Orenthal James Simpson got a little taste of karma today that couldn't have been scripted better if it were a Hollywood movie. The ex-football great will receive his day in court no doubt...compliments of an ALL-WHITE JURY!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Do you remember the statistics that show the breakdown between white and black Americans' views on Simpson's 1995 murder acquittal? Well, those statistics are about to play out in front of us on CourtTV starting bright and early Monday morning. We shall all have to wait with bated breath to see whether those numbers actually do come into play. Of course, no one on that jury will actually admit to any biases. That would be unethical and unconstitutional, right?

Now don't think that O.J.'s defense attorney, Yale Galanter didn't give it his all to stop this all-white jury from being formed. There had been one black juror, but the Prosecution struck her down during the peremptory challenge stage of voir dire. Galanter's defense was that the juror was being targeted because she was black, but Judge Jackie Glass didn't buy it, ergo constituting the gallows humor in this whole thing. Get it? Gallows! HAHAHAHA!

I am pretty sure, though, that O.J. Simpson is not laughing. He is, after all, the one looking at life in prison and I think this jury is starting to remind him of one of those racist rabbles looking to lynch the first black man in sight. Poor O.J. Poor, poor O.J. I would probably feel sorry for the man if it weren't so God-damn funny and so God-damn fitting. Don't worry, Juice, I think you have grounds for a great appeal should you be convicted.

Eric McLean, left, was married to Erin McLean, right, for 11 years before he suspected she was having an affair. Her paramour turned out to be her own student. I guess she's now teaching sex education. Hmmmm...Debra LaFave? Erin McLean? Where were these teachers when I was in school?

All right, now moving on to the teacher's husband who killed his wife's teen lover. That jury, today, found the jilted cuckold, Eric McLean, now 33, NOT GUILTY of murder one, NOT GUILTY of murder two, NOT GUILTY of involuntary manslaughter, but GUILTY of reckless homicide. He could receive probation for this crime.

His wife, Erin McLean, then 29, was having an affair with her 18-year-old former student, Sean Powell. Eric McLean confronted the teenage boy after he found the boy in his own house with his wife. He allegedly got a shotgun out to scare him, there was a struggle, and the gun went off killing the teen.

Meanwhile, Erin McLean has disappeared off the face of the Earth. She took her two kids and booked and no one can find her. I guess she was too embarrassed to testify in court. Eric McLean is free on bond until his sentencing in November and he is asking that his wife return their two kids to him.

Hmmmm...daddy shoots mommy's naughty teen boyfriend, mommy flees out of embarrassment, daddy might get probation, and now daddy wants his kids back. I think something is definitely wrong with this picture, although I must say that I did feel sorry for the man and I, too, would have acquitted him on all of those charges. His wife should have divorced him for her teen lover instead of staying married and flaunting her affaire de coeur at her husband. That's enough to make anyone snap, wouldn't you say?

So what do you think, people? Write to me about these two stories so that I know what you think.

Twin Tragedy: September 11, 2001

United Airlines Flight 175, right, barrels towards the South Tower of the World Trade Center while the North Tower smoulders after being struck by American Airlines Flight 11. These two monoliths came tumbling down to the streets of Manhattan hours after the impacts.

It has been seven years since two hijacked jetliners streaked across the New York sky inevitably changing the Manhattan skyline and the course of history forever. It has been seven years since that day of horror, in essence, a culmination of man's iniquity, wherein we saw men, women, and children run screaming and crying for their lives as the World Trade Center towers, the hub of the free economic world, came tumbling down.

Where were you on that fateful morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 when American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the North Tower?

I shall never forget that day nor shall I forget where I was when those planes collided with the North and South Towers: I was in my 10th grade French class. The period was just ending when the principal broadcasted the austere message to the school. At that moment, panic irrupted everywhere. I remember that I walked out of that class and into my U.S. History class just as the second tower started its descent to the streets of Manhattan. That day in History class, we weren't learning about American history...we were witnessing it.

I remember that I had scheduled an appointment the day before with my counselor to switch out of my Foods class. There was a big sticker in my school agenda that said, "9-11-01, 12:00PM, Mr. Dye, counselor." I went down there to see him that day, but as I approached the attendance office, I saw a line of hundreds of students billowing out of it. My appointment was cancelled that day and was never rescheduled, but my memory still remains---the memory of people confused, sobbing, and scared. It was truly a dark day in American history.

Of course, as time moves on, the wounds start to heal, and memories slowly start to fade. Seven years ago seems, by its sheer number, to be so recent, yet that day seems to have occurred eons ago as if it were lost somewhere in a rift in space and time. I noticed that the coverage today was far weaker than it had been during the first anniversay's and each year it seems to be less and less.

Perhaps one day the coverage about this dark day will cease to exist, just as those two towers, once the bastions of the free world, have since surceased---perhaps the day will come when the term 9/11 is as esoteric and moribund to us as the day the British burned down Washington in 1812...

Perhaps...but as long as we never forget that day...forget the lives lost that day...forget the heroes who, in turn, risked and gave their lives to protect us that day and who are still giving their lives to protect us today---as long as we never forget that, then the lives lost because of those horrific events that crisp September day will not have been in vain.

Autrefois Acquit: When Double Jeopardy Is and Is Not a Defense

Phil Spector, left, walks out of court a "free man" after his murder trial ended in a deadlock. Phil's 26-year-old wife, Rachelle Spector, right, escorts him out of the courthouse. Should Spector finally be acquitted, maybe he and his wife will throw a soiree at their castle this time instead of dancing outside of it as they did after the deadlock.

"How does the Defendant plead: Guilty or Not Guilty?" bellows a gruff judge. "Autrefois Acquit, Your Honor," replies the Defendant. "Autre...fois...what?" stammers a surprised and exasperated judge. "Autrefois Acquit, Your Honor," the Defendant answers once again with a coy smile.

Someone (like his lawyers) should have told Phil Spector when this rare plea by a defendant actually works, and when it's just a lot of hot air and a big waste of the Court's time.

Listen, Phil, such a plea only works when a judge commutes a charge to one less severe. It doesn't work as an acquittal when a defendant doesn't want lesser charges to be included. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this, my friend. You and your lawyers are behind the times (and I think they're just trying to waste more of your hard-earned money).

Now, if the judge were to have ruled that you did not murder Lana Clarkson, but had accidentally shot her, thus being an involuntary manslaughter charge, then your double jeopardy plea would work in this case. It does not work, no way, no how the way you want to make it work and you are only disgracing this wonderful and sacred American right with your vapid argument.

That's my dithyramb for the day about music magnate, Phil Spector and his otiose Motion for Stay on Double Jeopardy Grounds. With the above now stated, my question to all of you is simple:

What is the plea of autrefois acquit and why do we have it?

Let's begin, shall we?

Autrefois acquit is a peremptory plea or a plea made before a trial begins that may estop the government from carrying on with a trial against the defendant on the grounds of double jeopardy. Its etymology is derived from Anglo-French meaning "formerly acquitted." In the United States, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense because to do so is proscribed in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified into law by the First United States Congress on December 15, 1791.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This means that once jeopardy detaches (when a defendant is found NOT GUILTY or a charge is Dismissed with Prejudice), the case is over and can never be reopened against the defendant no matter what new and compelling inculpatory evidence might later be found.

The legal maxim of double jeopardy is one of the oldest in Western civilization. In 355 B.C., Athenian statesman Demosthenes averred, "The law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue." The Romans later codified this principle in the Digest of Justinian in A.D. 533. The principle also survived the Dark Ages (A.D. 400-1066), notwithstanding the deterioration of other Greco-Roman legal traditions, through CANON LAW and the teachings of early Christian writers.

A real world example of this is O.J. Simpson who was found NOT GUILTY of the murders of his wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2007, O.J. Simpson published a book, "If I Did It," which exposited in very macabre detail basically how he had killed his wife and Ronald Goldman. Since O.J. Simpson was acquitted, he can never be retried for the offenses so he, in essence, gets away with double murder. One could also look at it from the perspective that it became O.J. Simpson's legal right to commit the murders once he was acquitted because of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

In a nutshell, it's a legal technicality meant to protect a person against an overzealous government and it has been a precept embedded in Anglo-Saxon common law predating the eleventh century. It has also been found in Greek and Roman laws, notably the dicasteries, since circa 1,000 B.C., meaning it's been a fundamental human right well before Pontius Pilate crucified Christ.

Its fundamental purpose is to protect a person from the power and wealth of the government. Without a concept of double jeopardy, a defendant would be in interminable jeopardy:

Imagine that you were tried and acquitted of murder. Whether you had done it or not, you would still remain the government's prime suspect. The police would never move on or concentrate on a different person of interest. The government and, more so, the police would relentlessly harass you because of it. They would continually search your house and property because they would still have probable cause to get a warrant signed by a judge.

To harass you into confessing, the police would barge in late at night with a warrant to disturb your family's sleep. Your wife would leave you because she couldn't take it anymore and she would take your kids. You would never get enough sleep from all of this and they would harass you at work so you would, in turn, lose your job. You would not have enough money after all of the appeals by the government to contest the charge anymore thus making it easier for the government to get a GUILTY verdict or convincing you to willingly confess to something you did not do.

If you think about it, why wouldn't you confess? You've lost your wife, your family, your job, your house, and your entire way of life. The alternative of confessing to something you didn't do is far better than living the rest of your life in a state of interminable jeopardy.

Furthermore, without a concept of double jeopardy, a Prosecutor does not have to make a strong case against a defendant because, if he should fail, he can always do it again. This would lead to more innocent people's going to jail because they are being targeted with weak evidence. It could also lead to more guilty people's getting away with their crimes because investigators would concentrate on one suspect and never be dissuaded from that one.

The question must be posed that, "if your wife were murdered, everyone and his uncle know that YOU would be the prime suspect." They are never going to leave you alone because of this and, without protection against double jeopardy, you may be subjected to a pathetic prosecutorial case that leads to a conviction on some of the weakest evidence. You may also be acquitted, but who cares? They can wait and do it again should more evidence arise in the future. Are you getting scared now?

In England, the government has scrapped double jeopardy as of A.D. 2005. That means, although you may have been acquitted for a murder or rape you did not commit, you still have reason to worry because they're looking at you again and this time, you can forget the presumption of innocence because, if a case should be brought back to court, it means a judge thought there to be good reason and you have virtually no chance at beating it this time---innocent or not.

That's the problem with not having a concept of double jeopardy---a case is never closed; no finality exists. When a man is convicted of a crime and serves his time, he cannot be tried again and put into prison for the exact same offense. He is free from persecution, therefore it makes sense that a man who is acquitted should feel the same freedom from persecution and that is why we have a clause in our Constitution that protects us Americans from the power, wealth, and unlimited resources of the government.

Now there are some people who get upset when they hear murderers walk free and then tell their stories about how they got away with it, but, in my mind, that's just tough. The bigger concern for us as a society is those innocent people who are rotting away in prison or who have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. As former United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black once said:

" The underlying idea…is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity; as well as enhancing the possibility that, even though innocent, he may be found guilty.”

Amen to that, Justice Black.

Anyway, There are also two other peremptory pleas and they are autrefois convict and plea of pardon (Cough! Choke! Scooter Libby) . An example of a protection against double jeopardy for the guilty would be to suppose you were charged with first-degree murder, but a jury found you only GUILTY of manslaughter stating that there wasn't enough evidence to show that you meant to kill the victim.

Instead of getting life in prison or the death penalty, you receive 10-15 years and are out in 8 years. Two years after your release, new evidence is discovered that would sufficiently prove that you committed premeditated murder. There is nothing that can be done about this because you have already been convicted for this offense. You shouldn't have to be subjected to more punishment at a later date. It keeps the government from trying to get its way when it doesn't like the outcome of a case.

In England, the Crown was well-known for its abuse of defendants' rights especially when the Royal Family had a special interest in a particular case. In many cases in Britain during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, double jeopardy only existed in capital crimes or crimes punishable by death so the King would influence many verdicts. There were many trials in which the jury found a defendant NOT GUILTY, but the Crown ordered the court to issue a judgement non obstante veredicto, which is a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Even though the defendant was found NOT GUILTY, the court would change the verdict to GUILTY and sentence the defendant accordingly.

Later, when the laws were changed to try to halt the Crown from abusing its power, the King issued exorbitant jailers' fees to prevent an acquitted defendant from being released by his captors. The fees were meant to force defendants to pay their captors for their encarceration, but they were so usurious that many acquitted defendants were known to have died in prison for failure to come up with enough funds to meet their release.

In the United States, a judgment non obstante veredicto can only be issued upon the defendant's request to change a jury verdict from GUILTY to NOT GUILTY. A judge cannot throw out a NOT GUILTY verdict because of the defendant's Fifth Amendmet right to be protected against double jeopardy and his Sixth Amendment right to a "trial by jury."

Although, should a judge change a verdict to NOT GUILTY, the prosecution can file an immediate appeal because the original verdict was GUILTY. It's one of the few times the government can appeal a NOT GUILTY verdict in the United States, but it has to be an immediate appeal, which usually means the prosecution has somewhere within the vicinity of 24 hours to file the appeal or the verdict is upheld. This time allotment may differ from state to state.

If you have ever seen the movie "Fracture," and you know the plea of autrefois acquit, then you know that the producers screwed up in this movie. In the movie, Anthony Hopkins' character was found NOT GUILTY of the attempted murder of his wife. Later she was taken off life support and died from the injuries sustained from the gunshot wound to the head inflicted by her husband.

At the end of the movie, the Prosecutor has Anthony Hopkins' character rearrested for murder as he claims he now has the bullet from Hopkins' wife's head and the gun they couldn't find until Anthony's character told him where to look, which is all new evidence. He claims that double jeopardy doesn't apply in this case because Hopkins was charged with attempted murder, but since his wife has since died, it can now be upgraded to a murder charge, which is not the same offense. Anthony Hopkins' character is then put back on trial.

This is wrong because double jeopardy protects against BASICALLY the same offense, too. The double jeopardy defense, in this case, would be collateral estoppel. Since Anthony Hopkins' character was acquitted of the attempted murder of his wife and his wife died of complications from injuries sustained from that encounter, he cannot be retried under the charge of his wife's murder. The government would be arguing, in essence, the same thing---thus double jeopardy.

In real life, Anthony's lawyers would have had their client plead AUTREFOIS ACQUIT along with NOT GUILTY at his arraignment and this charge of murder, even though he did it, would never have seen the inside of a courtroom. In fact, it would have probably led to a lawsuit filed by the Defendant against the government for "malicious prosecution."

So remember, a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense or something that is basically the same offense in the United States. Double jeopardy is up there with bills of attainder, lettres de cachet, writs of habeus corpus, and ex post facto laws: They are inalienable rights of all Americans---of all mankind.

Double Trouble: Spector's Retrial To Commence

Phil Spector buttons his blazer outside the courthouse during his first murder trial. The jury deadlocked at the end of that trial.

LOS ANGELES, California---The retrial of famed music producer extraordinaire, Harvey Phillip Spector has been set to begin some time in October. Spector, 67, is accused of fatally shooting actress, Lana Clarkson at his Pyrenees Castle home in Alhambra, California some time during the morning hours of February 3, 2003. He has pled NOT GUILTY to the charge and has maintained that the depressed, B-movie actress committed suicide.

Judge Larry Paul Fidler declared a mistrial in Spector's first trial on September 26, 2007 after each of the twelve jurors had told him that there was no way a unanimous verdict could be reached. The jury had voted, 10-2 to convict the embattled producer.

Spector's defense team has tried numerous tricks to delay the retrial including accusing the presiding judge of being biased against Spector. The defense team had asked Judge Fidler to recuse himself and had sought to have a neutral judge appointed to investigate the matter. Judge Fidler refused the recusation request and an appeals court denied the request by the Defense.

A California Appeals Court panel has also denied Spector's most recent argument, a Motion for Stay, wherein he claimed double jeopardy. Spector's lawyers were attempting to keep the Prosecution from seeking lesser charges against their client because the original judge had declared that these charges were unacceptable, thus, in their minds, automatically acquitting Spector. Prosecutors have not determined yet whether they will seek to have these charges introduced to the jury at the retrial.

Spector has also refiled a suit against his former attorney, Robert Shapiro for $1,000,000. Spector claims that Shapiro has refused to return his retainer after being fired. Shapiro is best known for successfully defending O.J. Simpson on double murder charges in 1995.

Should Spector be convicted this time around, he is looking at life in prison.

Too BIG for the Bench

Judge Elizabeth Halverson sits stoically on her bench, but is she too big for that seat?

It's not a mystery that Judge Elizabeth Halverson is an obese American. The 425-pound District Court judge suffers from a nimiety of health problems because of her extreme girth including diabetes and Crohn's Disease. Because of her debilitating health, Halverson is confined to an oxygen tank and a scooter so that she can both survive and move around.

Now in a society that frowns upon being fat, a person in Judge Halverson's position can be subjected to torrid abuse about her weight. This abuse can cause anyone to lose her temper, revile and belittle others around her, and be an all-around petulant person.

It is also not out of the realm of possibility that a person who is in this situation day after day may logically feel as though everyone were out to get her...and maybe...everyone is. Maybe it is just a little bit plausible that people actually do want a piece of the woman whom many have called, Jabba the Judge.

I mean, why wouldn't they? It's no mystery that there are people who hate other people just because those other people are different. We see such bigotries all of the time in our daily lives---racism, antisemitism, misogyny, misandry, xenophobia, sinophobia, and so on. Shall I continue?

Perhaps we should stop for just one second and put ourselves in Judge Halverson's shoes---the shoes of a nearly quarter-ton woman whose physiological looks do nothing for her except aid in the occasional snook from a passer-by. Now I want you to try living that life day in and day out. Do you think you could handle the stress that comes with that lifestyle? All you have to do is take a gander at the seemingly harmless pasquinade I have created about the grand judge and you will understand where I am coming from.

In the end, I am not trying to make excuses for the embattled judge because she is what she is...but it's what she isn't that is her BIGGEST obstacle. She is not the conventionally-sized person who goes about her day like you and me. She is something far larger, and that, suffice it to say, in this society, is a really BIG problem.

Judge Elizabeth Halverson Gets Fried

Judge Elizabeth Halverson listens to testimony during one of her few trials while an elected judge. Halverson was suspended in July 2007 for conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. The disciplinary review board is still deliberating whether she will be permanantly removed from the bench.

LAS VEGAS, Nevada---Suspended District Judge, The Honorable Elizabeth Halverson was the beneficiary of a judicial smackdown late Thursday night compliments of her husband, Edward Halverson. It is alleged that Edward Halverson, 49, beat his wife of ten years with a frying pan.

Elizabeth Halverson, 50, made an emergency 911 call to police at 10:50PM to report that her husband was bludgeoning her and had threatened to kill her, according to Metropolitan Police. The police arrived at the Halverson residence only to find Edward Halverson in his living room and his wife in a rear bedroom with severe injuries to her head, chest, and upper arms.

Police arrested the swingeing spouse on multiple felony charges including attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, and battery with substantial bodily harm. He will be arraigned Tuesday morning in Las Vegas.

Edward Halverson is no stranger to the law. The three-time convicted felon has served four years in prison for numerous non-violent offenses including cocaine possession and burglary.

His wife, The Honorable Elizabeth Halverson was rushed to Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center in Las Vegas where she underwent emergency surgery. She is listed in critical condition in the intensive care unit of the hospital.

Elizabeth Halverson has been suspended from the bench since July 2007 when she was deemed "a threat to justice" by the same judicial review board that overheard her "Removal from the Bench" hearing in early August, which aired live on CourtTV. That review board is still deliberating what punishment, if any, she will receive for her nimiety of judicial transgressions, which include ex parte communications with jurors, sleeping on the bench, being verbally abusive to her staff, and making her bailiff massage her feet, cook her meals, tell her bedtime stories, and worship her from near and from far. It is also alleged that Elizabeth Halverson had asked her bailiff on a few occasions to kill 'Evil Ed', which is the nickname she had given her husband.

Halverson's attorney, Michael Schwartz, who represents her in her removal hearing, said he was stunned to hear what had happened between the 'corpulent' couple whom he had worked with extensively for nearly two weeks during Halverson's nationally televised trial:

"I am absolutely bewildered," he said. "I have no reason to believe anything like this would occur." Special prosecutor, Dorothy Nash Holmes, who pursued the alleged complaints against the disgraced judge, commented: “We all wish Judge Halverson the best.”

Both attorneys have said that this incident will not prorogue the closing arguments, which must be submitted in writing to the disciplinary review board by September 18th.

THE BIG PICTURE

"Where the hell are the breaks on this thing? God damn it, Ed! What the fuck did you do to this thing?"

I don't know about you, but isn't that wall behind Judge Halverson an allegory of her career?---Humpty Dumpty's Great Fall!!!! LOL!

I'm pretty sure that all of the king's horses and all of the king's men couldn't put Judge Halverson's career back together again.

"Me Judge Halverson! Feed me! Me get bigger and eat you!"

What do you think? If Ed and Liz had a kid, Would this be its school picture?

"Your Honor, my due process rights are being infringed upon at this...where'd my scooter go?"

Am I the only one here who thinks she's getting bigger by the second?

"But Your Honor, I can't find them. Where are they?"

Boy, I'm glad I'm not that guy.

Will the Glove Fit This Time Around?

O.J. Simpson tries on the pair of gloves allegedly used by the murderer of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman at his 1995 double murder trial. Simpson was later exonerated of the murders.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit," bellowed a hoarse defense attorney named Johnny Cochran during "The Trial of the Century" wherein Orenthal James Simpson was exculpated of the brutal slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

So where were you the morning of Tuesday, October 3, 1995, upon the reading of the verdict? "We, the jury, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson NOT GUILTY..." Were you at work? Were you in school? Were you getting your hair done?

I was in Mrs. DiSienna's fourth grade art class. I remember the principal broke into daily announcements so that the staff members and students could hear the reading of that verdict. While I was only 9-years-old, I still remember the mixed reactions from fellow classmates and teachers. There were the black kids huddled together acting as though Lincoln had just freed the slaves, there were white kids acting as though Kennedy had just been shot, and at her desk was Mrs. DiSienna---mulling about what a travesty of justice had just occurred. On the television, turned on seconds after the verdict, was an enormous crowd outside the courthouse in Los Angeles---chanting, jeering, almost in a near riot as if the Rodney King trial had been rewound.

I was upset, but at that time and at that age, I really didn't know what I was upset about. It may have been disappointment as I knew very well that my father and mother had so wanted Simpson to be found guilty. Everyone knows that parents rub off on children and, at that age, I was very impressionable. Later, I learned that even the lowest of scum deserve a fair trial, and regardless of what you may think, whether it be that he is guilty or not, Orenthal James Simpson received a fair trial. It is his right and he exerted it---you can blame the prosecution for its sloppy work, you can blame the jury for being star-struck, and you can blame the judge and media for turning The Trial of the Century into a circus, but the bottom line is he was acquitted and there is nothing that can be done to fix it.

You may hate him for what he might have done to his ex-wife and her friend and you may still hold a grudge against him for writing a book in which he basically confesses to the murders, but the law is the law: This man, whether he be a cold-blooded killer or not, is on trial for something entirely different. That trial has been over for 13 years, America. It's time to move on. This man should be held liable for the facts that are contained in the 12 charges listed in the indictment. He is to be adjudged on those charges and those charges only. He mustn't have to endure a feeling of dread as though he were being put in double jeopardy for those two murders oh so many years ago in what seems like another lifetime to some.

The question now is simple: Will the glove fit this time around or will O.J. Simpson once again slip through the cracks of the American system of jurisprudence?

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

With that said, we know that Simpson is free from being charged for those crimes ever again, but is he carrying a "scarlet letter" seemingly brocaded upon his forehead? Is there some diaphanous bounty out on O.J. Simpson's head? If so, is that something fair? Afterall, it's not his fault he was acquitted more than a decade ago, it's not his fault that the prosecution bungled its case, and its not his fault that the jury thought there to be reasonable doubt in the case.

This is our justice system and it's not perfect. We all know that guilty people walk free every day just as we know innocent people go to prison for the rest of their lives. But remember, it's all we've got. O.J. Simpson and his co-defendant, C.J. Stewart have a right to tell their stories, they have a right to a fair and impartial jury of their peers, and they have a right to a fair trial whether they be guilty as sin or not.

I ask that those prospective jurors set aside their ancient prejudices against the man many believe got away with murder and be more human because if we let hate consume us, we become no better than the man sitting in that Defendant's seat. At that point, we have become something less than human, and in this country, that my friends, guilty verdict or not, is never justice.

O.J., Lawyers Ready for Trial

October 3, 1995: Orenthal James Simpson, center, clenches his fists in victory upon the reading of the "NOT GUILTY" verdicts in regard to the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

LAS VEGAS, Nevada---O.J. Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter told Judge Jackie Glass that he and his client were ready for jury selection, which will begin Monday. The judge said she believes jury selection will take a week and that the trial is expected to last about five weeks.

O.J. Simpson's only remaining co-defendant, C.J. Stewart, along with his lawyer, Robert Lucherini once again moved for a Motion for Stay and Sever and once again were denied by the judge:

"I am not granting your motion to continue," Glass told Lucherini. "I am not ... granting a stay. The jury selection process will begin next Monday."

Lucherini has vowed to the judge that he will ask the Nevada Supreme Court to reconsider his Motion to Sever, claiming that his client cannot receive a fair trial if he should have to be seated next to O.J. Simpson. He adduced many reasons to the Court as to why he believes his client could not get a fair trial next to Simpson, most notably, Simpson's 1995 double murder acquittal of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman in Los Angeles.

The jury pool of 500 was reduced to 250 after defense attorneys and prosecutors spent several hours August 25th reviewing answers provided by those prospective jurors on a 26-page questionnaire:

"We did excuse most of the people, if not all of the people, who expressed extreme opinions about the parties," Glass said, "in an effort to have a very efficient jury selection process."

Those extreme opinions may be the result of the feelings many people have that O.J. Simpson got away with double murder. A recent poll has shown that over 80% of Americans now believe that the former National Football League player, turned actor and pitchman was guilty of the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend. The same poll has shown that black American, who once stood near 70% in favor of not guilty, have seen their favor of him fall to numbers near 40%.

This could be a result of O.J. Simpson's book, "If I Did It," which was published in 2007 after a Federal Bankruptcy Court granted the rights to the book to the Goldman family in an effort to offset the nearly $38 million wrongful death judgment they have against Simpson. In the book, Simpson talks about the problems plaguing his ex-wife and gives a very grisly, hypothetical look into how these murders would have occurred if he had committed them.

Simpson and Stewart have pled not guilty to 12 charges, including felony kidnapping, armed robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon stemming from a September 2007 confrontation they had with two sports memorabilia dealers in a Las Vegas casino hotel who were allegedly selling stolen property of Simpson's. Some of that property was believed to include the suit Simpson wore the day of his 1995 double murder acquittal.

A kidnapping conviction could net Simpson and Stewart life in prison with the possibility of parole. A robbery conviction would mean mandatory prison time. Their trial is set to begin with opening statements some time this month.

Testifying on One's Own Behalf: Smart Move or Dumb Idea?

Sean Fitzpatrick cracks a smile and shrugs his shoulders as he testifies during his direct-examination. Fitzpatrick, 44, took the stand in his own defense during his double murder trial that ended in a hung jury.

Self-incrimination---we've all done it. I am sure everyone has heard that it's better not to say anything than it is to speak up---the old "shut your trap because you're only digging yourself a bigger hole" argument---but is it smart to stay quiet when one's life is on the line?

Anyone who has taken a junior high U.S. history class knows that there is a special clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that deals with this very notion:

"No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

While plausible, it may not be practical because we, as human beings, always want to run our mouths to each other. We are a voluble species---our words, in essence, our communication speaks volumes as to who we are and, when we're silent, that, too, can speak volumes.

With that being said, the question to be posed is simple: When is it a smart move to take the stand in one's own defense (if such a situation even exist)? Well, if such a situation should arise, it must be remembered that a Defendant's testifying can be something that may help shed some light on his innocence or obfuscate it even more.

I personally would shut my mouth if I were on trial or under suspicion. A person can only do more harm than good when he speaks for himself. Everyone can think of some time in his life that he was in trouble and, while thinking he could talk his way out of it, let something slip:

Do you remember the look your mother gave you when you let it slip that you had been smoking cigarettes outside of school with a friend when your mother was questioning why she had found a pack of cigarettes in your backpack?

Well, you may or may not have had this happen, but it's very simple: in normal circumstances, it is better to keep one's mouth shut than it is to let words effuse from it like the plague, but, of course, every situation dictates itself.

In Sean Fitzpatrick's case, he was almost forced to waive his Fifth Amendment right so that he could try to shed some light on how his DNA had gotten into Fred Martins' truck. While he seemed cool under pressure, many people scrutinized him as though he were being too flippant during something that should have elicited more seriousness and comport. That, my friends, is the old, "You're damned if you do...you're damned if you don't" complex of human beings. Had he been more emotional, he would have been shedding "crocodile tears." Had he been more stoic, he would have been portrayed as callous or insensitive to the issue at hand.

A defendant can rarely win when he takes the stand in his own defense. I have stood trial twice on misdemeanors and have never taken the stand in my own defense. It's not a smart move. A person can subject himself to a barage of questions that are meant to be incriminating in nature thus destroying any chance of an acquittal.

Again, though, like the term "reasonable doubt," testifying on one's own behalf, too, is subjective in nature. A person must make the choice whether to speak for himself and should not worry about what others may think as a good juror will follow the law by not holding it against the person should he invoke his right to remain silent.

The lesson to be learned is one that you should hope never to find yourself in this situation---misdemeanor or felony---guilty or not. Remember, though, should you ever find yourself stuck in this situation, make sure you know when and where it's appropriate to speak and to whom---or you may end up talking yourself into more than you had bargained for...

Let me know what you think about this. I am open for anyone's comments.

P.S. This is not meant to be legal advice in any way, shape, or form. It is a topic of conversation meant to bring out different opinions from different people. Do not interpret this as legal advice. Ask a lawyer if you should be caught in a situation wherein you are in jeopardy of life or limb.

The Double-Headed Coin of Sean Fitzpatrick

Sean Fitzpatrick, left, is accused of the brutal slayings of Michael Zammitti, Jr. and Chester Roberts. Michelle Zammitti, right, was the Defendant's paramour for several months.


It's an old axiom: There are always two sides to a coin.

But when there are two people's heads, in essence, their lives on that coin, when does that roll reverse? When is it that we, as human beings, start to believe the side we want to believe because, well, it's obvious, we want to blame someone for these horrific crimes?

We all know that people want to find someone to blame; we've witnessed it throughout grade school and into our daily lives. Who can forget the cranky, old teacher who snapped at the student whose daily planner flew across the room at her? Remember when she asked who threw this and the whole class pointed at you when it was really the kid behind you? Maybe not, but I do and it's situations like these that can be the foundation for much larger offenses such as what stands before Sean Fitzpatrick.

Fitzpatrick, 44, claims he is innocent; he has told conflicting stories of going for coffee that morning at Freedom Market and how he was home in bed sleeping during the murders, along with the claim of his tenuous alibi, neighbor, Gert DuCharme, but when do we, as people, decide that a person who stands defiant in the face of his accusers, whether the case against him be proven or not, is de facto guilty?

We have all heard of the presumption of innocence---the dictum that emblazons every criminal trial---the steadfast belief that "we, as a society, would rather let 100 murderers, rapists, and thieves walk free on a technicality than put one innocent man in prison," but in the height of suspicion, without much evidence at all, we have seen time and time again, innocent people go to prison, in essence, having part of their lives taken away, even put to death, until years later we discover we have made a grave error in judgment. But didn't they get a fair trial? Or is the word "fair" as subjective in theory as the term "reasonable doubt" is to those twelve people who took their lives away?

While we may never know what makes up the minds of the people who convict with shoddy evidence no more than we shall ever learn what makes up the minds of the jury that acquits with overwhelming evidence before it, we do know one thing: That the people whose lives play in that soap opera will forever be affected regardless whether the verdict be GUILTY or NOT.

With that said, in Sean Fitzpatrick's defense, we must, as a society, look at even his side of the coin along with comparing the side of the victims who have brought this case before us and who have endured such tribulation for two and half year. So without further adieu, we shall begin with the Commonwealth's case against Sean Fitzpatrick:

The Inculpatory Evidence

• Motive: Fitzpatrick had been having an affair with victim, Michael Zammitti's wife, Michelle
• Michelle had just told Sean that she could not leave her husband "unless something happened to him"
• The Zammitti's house is burglarized and a 16-gauge shotgun is stolen
• On the morning of Monday, March 13, 2006, Sean Fitzpatrick is off work and his neighbor, Fred Martin is in Florida when his neighbor's green F-150 truck's EZ pass transponder goes off at 8:51AM, some ten minutes after the murders, allegedly on its way back from Massachusetts
• The surveillance cameras from neighboring businesses spot a green F-150 truck outside of Allstate and a person running from the building towards it
• A 16-gauge shotgun was used in the two slayings and, while the gun is never recovered, 16-gauge shotgun shells are found in the Defendant's home upon a search warrant; the Defendant owns no 16-gauge shotgun
• The Defendant's skin cell DNA is found in a crevice on the steering wheel and on the keys of the truck, but the neighbor tells police that the Defendant has never been inside of his truck
• The Defendant's white truck is parked outside of his home---something unusual said by neighbors, along with the fact that the Defendant is leaning against his truck that morning some time between 9:15AM and 10:05AM, drinking a cup of coffee, and talking to his neighbor, Gert DuCharme, allegedly to set up an alibi
• His cellphone is unusually turned off---since he works for Verizon, he has knowledge that the police can triangulate cellphone signals---it is turned on and a call is made at 9:34AM to a friend
• A four-second call was made to a car rental agency by the Defendant the night before the murders---presumably he had figured out that his call could be traced by police so he hung up

In the light of that somewhat overwhelming circumstantial evidence, one might say that, "Hey, he did it. We don't need to hear his side," but there is his side, and in this country, he gets to present it whether you like it or not, and perhaps it may make you think when you hear it. With that being said, I present to you Sean Fitzpatrick's best defense:

The Exculpatory Evidence

• No Motive: The affair had been over for a while---the Defendant was in the process of selling his house
• Michelle told Prosecutors that she had told Sean that they could only be together "if something happened to her husband" two weeks before trial and two years after the fact
• The Zammitti's house was burglarized and a 16-gauge shotgun was stolen, but who cares? There's nothing linking Sean Fitzpatrick to that burglary, no evidence it was the same 16-gauge shotgun used in the murders, and there had been three burglaries that month in his neighborhood and seventeen burglaries that winter in the area
• On the morning of Monday, March 13, 2006, the Defendant was off work, but he is always off on Mondays. Furthermore, his neighbor's green F-150 truck's EZ pass transponder goes off when he is in Florida, but anyone could have taken that truck and no evidence shows that it was the truck used to commit the crime. More so, the Zammittis lived across the street and had access to that truck as did everyone else in the neighborhood
• The surveillance cameras from neighboring businesses may have spotted a green F-150 truck outside of Allstate that morning, but no evidence links the neighbor's truck or the Defendant to it
• It had been raining earlier that morning; the ten sets of tire tracks taken from the scene by police do not match the neighbor's truck and the footprints at the scene of the crime do not match the Defendant's footprints
• The murders were committed from about 10 feet away with a shotgun; blood blew everywhere when Michael Zammitti, Jr. was shot in the head so the Defendant must have gotten blood and even gun powder residue on his clothing and transferred it to the truck
• No gun powder residue or blood was found in the neighbor's truck
• No dirt, mud, or any sediments from the Allstate dirt parking lot were found inside the truck or in the tires or wheel wells; a bloody footprint was found at the scene of the crime, but unsure whether that was the killer's print or Zammitti Sr.'s when he found his son shot
• 16-gauge shotgun shells are found at the Defendant's house, but those could have been planted by the real killer and they cannot link them to the 16-gauge shells stolen from the Zammitti's house; also why would the killer use a shotgun to do these murders and why would he possibly steal it from the victim's house? Does not make sense
• The skin cell DNA of the Defendant's is found in a crevice on the steering wheel of his neighbor's truck along with being on the keys; his neighbor says that Sean has never been in the truck, but the Defendant says he had been in the truck several months prior to help his neighbor get his boat out of the water. The neighbor is old and forgetful
• There are no fingerprints on the door, the gear shift, the radio---no hair from the Defendant in the car, he is a minor donor on both the keys and that crevice. His story makes more sense than the Prosecution's theory that he drove hundreds of miles to murder Michael Zammitti---wouldn't he have left hair or wouldn't he have left prints all over that truck? Why is it only in that little crevice on the top of the steering wheel?
• The Defendant says he has an alibi, Gert DuCharme and he says he talked to her between 9:15AM and 9:30AM prior to making that call at 9:34AM---the alibi says it was between 10AM and 10:05AM. The neighbor though is old, forgetful, and she is basing the time on her routine. The alibi also cannot remember whether the Martins' truck was in the driveway when she was talking to the Defendant nor did anyone see the truck disappear or come back and it was during the busy time of the day
• Either way, it's cutting it close as to whether the Defendant could get back home from that spot at 8:51AM where the EZ pass transponder went off to make that call or see his neighbor, Gert DuCharme after getting a cup of coffee
• The Defendant says he went to Freedom Market to get the cup of coffee, but the cameras at Freedom market only have a live feed---they do not record---How would the Defendant know?
• The security system and cameras at Allstate were broken the morning of the murders---coincidence? How would the Defendant know?
• So the Defendant's truck is parked outside? So his cellphone is off? You've never done something like that before?
• The four-second call to a car rental agency was a wrong number dialed. Haven't you dialed a wrong number before?
• There were other people (possible mob connections), some in the Zammitti family, that could have wanted either Michael Zammitti, Jr. or Sr. dead. In fact, Michael Zammitti, Sr. was running late for work that morning because he had received a phone call on his way out the door. It's possible the bullet was meant for him

However you look at this case, whether Sean Fitzpatrick be guilty or not, it still took a lot of coincidences in either direction to bring us to this point. One cannot help feeling that a set-up has occurred, but maybe I have watched too much television. Nevertheless, the lives of the people who are affected by this case will forever be changed---whether it be the Defendant's, the victims' families', or the neighbors' in this community---life will be just a little different, and like all good mysteries, this one, verdict or not, will never truly be solved.

Jury Deadlocks in the Double Murder Trial of Sean Fitzpatrick

Sean Fitzpatrick sits while he awaits the jury's verdict in a Massachusetts courtroom. The jury reported it had come to an impasse four days into deliberations.


WOBURN, Massachusetts---Late Tuesday, August 26th, after enduring four days of deliberation and exhausting all other measures including the "DYNAMITE" charge, Judge Kathe Tuttman dismissed the four men-eight women jury and declared a mistrial in the highly publicized double murder-love triangle case of Sean Fitzpatrick. The jury had sent one final note earlier in the day that said:

“Some members have expressed conviction they could never vote guilty in the absence of physical evidence.”

Fitzpatrick, 44, is accused of driving from his home in Freedom, New Hampshire to Wakefield, Massachusetts on March 13, 2006 to murder Michael Zammitti. It is the Prosecution's theory that Zammitti, 39, was killed because he was the husband of Fitzpatrick's paramour. Chester Roberts, 51, was killed because he had witnessed the murder. Sean Fitzpatrick has vehemently denied any involvement in the murders and took the stand in his own defense during the trial.

Michelle Zammitti testified that she had expressed to the Defendant that their relationship was over and that "the only way they could be together would be if something happened to her husband." Although, she exclaimed this to the Prosecution two weeks before trial and two years after the fact.

During the trial, there was much suspicion and a lot of circumstantial evidence, but the one thing missing was the fact that the Commonwealth could not put the Defendant in his neighbor's truck and put that truck at the Allstate company in Wakefield, Massachusetts the morning of the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the evidence made one have to assume that it was the Defendant who was driving his neighbor's truck and that that was the truck used to commit the murders, but no definitive evidence existed.

The Commonwealth has already said it will retry Mr. Fitzpatrick some time in October. Until then, the Defendant must sit in prison where he has sat for two years as he awaits the legal outcome of this sordid case of an adulterous affair gone awry. My questions to anyone who reads this are simple:

Should he be given bail now that the first jury has hung? What, if anything, should the Prosecution do to buttress its evidence against the Defendant? Were you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Fitzpatrick had committed these brutal murders?

If you have not heard of the case, you can search "Sean Fitzpatrick murder trial" on Google or CNN.com/CRIME.

I, for one, was not convinced that Mr. Fitzpatrick had committed these crimes. I watched this trial for three weeks on CourtTV and the Prosecutor's evidence was based on assumptions---not facts. You had to assume that the truck on the video was Sean's neighbor's truck, you had to assume that Sean Fitzpatrick had stolen it and was driving it, you had to assume the shotgun stolen from the Zammitti's house was the one used in the murders, you had to assume that the Defendant had burglarized the Zammitti's house to get that shotgun, and you had to assume that the Defendant had never been in his neighbor's truck at least one time in all of the years his neighbor had owned it.

It was all assumptions. In a murder trial, wherein a Defendant is innocent until proven guilty, you cannot assume anything. You must reach a verdict on what can be proven---not what can be assumed. In this country, if an assumption were evidence, every Defendant would be convicted, which is all well and good until it's your son or your brother or even you who are on trial. Then you will want a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Assumptions destroy that presumption of innocence, and, in this country, that, my friends, is no fair trial.

Opening Address

The statue, placed just outside a dicastery in ancient Athens, represents the blindness of Athenian justice, which is considered the wellspring of our own jurisprudence.

This shall act as my opening address for this blog. This blog is open to all who want to comment on issues throughout life and in the news. Please feel free to comment and I shall try to address it. You may post works or articles you have written to my blog; should you choose to, I will be more than happy to post them as your own with credit to you. Should you wish not to give your name, that will be fine as well.

With that being said, welcome to THE DICAST. I'll publish some articles of my own from time to time. I hope you enjoy.