Hollida Wakefield and Barbara Johnson: Judge Piersol made a strange ruling when the prosecution closed their case without proving the alleged events had occurred in Indian territory. The defense therefore asked for a directed acquittal because this was an essential element of the case. It should have happened. But Pierson let the state reopen their case to do this. Yes, I recall reading that. I was shocked. Even in misdemeanor cases, wed catch the prosecutor who forgot to put, for instance, the age of a minor into evidence. At the end of the case, Move to dismiss, Your Honor. . . . Case dismissed. I sat through practically the whole case and took detailed notes. When I write my memoirs (I really am going to do this), this will be one of the cases I write about. Picture the scene. Five native Americans. The only other native Americans are their family members watching the trial. Five white attorneys. A white judge. A while court reporter dressed in western costumes. White bailiffs and security guards going out of their way to uphold the letter of the law. The prosecutors and the defense attorneys are all white. All the experts are white. Everyone on the jury is white. Horrendous! Jury of their peers! The state used the “drunken Indian” strategy. This is how they attempted to present the defendants. It played right into the jury. I have been told repeatedly that there is prejudice against Indians in that area. I sat through the trial and saw all this. Yes, they were putting in all the past run-ins with the law to show a propensity to violate the law. Interesting, the rape-shield rule, 412, addresses the propensity issue. So Piersol allowed propensity evidence against the men but then denied admitting the inter-child activity and Moses testimony. It was many years ago but I have stories I can tell.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:23:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015