-
That Is What We Do
May 14, 2013 | 108 comments
-
Shame Old Shame Old From Obama
April 19, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Cut Out the Chase
April 5, 2013 | 83 comments
-
All in the Family
March 26, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Israel in the Tank for Obama
March 21, 2013 | 112 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Reason to Doubt
Was justice done in the Chandra Levy case?
There are many areas of overlap between American law and Jewish law. The traditional Jewish court system — founded on Biblical statements as explained by the Oral Tradition — is only in place today for civil matters, where Torah-observant Jews will sue each other in hearings before three-rabbi panels. To enforce the verdicts, litigants sign a legally binding document accepting the rabbis as arbitrators.
However, the criminal justice system is suspended when there is no standing Temple in Jerusalem. The Israeli criminal courts follow the precedents established during the periods of Turkish and British sovereignty, with a peek over the shoulder of American courts. They will occasionally refer to Biblical and Talmudic law to bolster an opinion but they do not defer to it as authoritative.
The starkest contrast between the two systems is in what constitutes reliable testimony. In the Jewish system, confessions are only valid in monetary cases. If the man admits to owing money, the court will enter a judgment against him for that sum. If he recants later, or he claims to have paid up without witnesses present, the lien remains in force.
He may also be believed relative to laws which abridge his own rights. In Biblical law, a man who has an affair with a married woman is not permitted to marry her later if she becomes a divorcee or widow. This would apply even if the affair was not corroborated independently and is known to the court only through his confession.
However, no criminal penalty can be assigned by confession. The criminal court may only convict through the testimony of third parties. Additionally, relatives may not testify either to benefit or detriment. Parents, siblings, children, spouses, even first and second cousins are not eligible. In American law, there generally is a spousal privilege, which can be waived, but most other relatives may be compelled to testify — and are believed.
Furthermore, in the Biblical system convicted criminals lose their civil right to be a witness. Thus, a jailhouse snitch would be disqualified on two grounds. First, he is an untrustworthy criminal (unless he was just in detention and was later acquitted). Second, he has not seen the crime and is merely reporting a confession, which would have been inadmissible in any case.
The conviction of Ingmar Guandique last week for the murder of Chandra Levy was done without physical evidence or witnesses. Indeed there was male DNA on the victim’s clothing, but it did not match Guandique. He was convicted on the basis of having mugged two other women without violence and on the word of a cellmate. There is plenty of room for reasonable doubt. The prosecutor and Levy’s family proclaimed the verdict a “miracle,” which is code for “Thank goodness these folks decided to teach a lesson to this illegal immigrant by interpreting their duties loosely.”
Convicting people for major crimes on circumstantial evidence and secondhand confessions relayed by career criminals is poor policy. American law does allow it, but competent judges and juries are still expected to use their judgment in attributing proper weight to each proof. Here this discretion was not managed creditably. Why? Because the case had become a cause célèbre back in 2001, with the news that then-Congressman Gary Condit was in an adulterous relationship with Levy.
Celebrity and the courtroom are a bad match. The cases of O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson and Robert Blake, all resulting in acquittals, were no less flawed than Guandique’s conviction. Perhaps the most insane guilty verdict in a famous-person case is race-car driver Michael Goodwin, who sits in a California jail for conspiring to kill fellow driver and entrepreneur Mickey Thompson. This, despite the fact that the killers were never caught and there is no evidence of phone calls or payments by Goodwin to anyone, only threats. (It may not even be possible for Governor Schwarzenegger to pardon him due to a peculiar clause in California law excluding two-time felons from consideration. Goodwin was once before convicted of making false statements on a loan application.)
All this concerns me as an observer of the American justice system and obsessive consumer of true crime reportage since childhood. More important at this moment are the implications for the trials of terrorists housed in Guantanamo Bay. The Obama Justice Department has taken a blustery moral stand in favor of civilian trials for these detainees. The first test of this policy came a fortnight ago when Ahmed Ghailani was acquitted of all but one of 280 counts. It may fairly be deduced that the spotlight and the politicization skewed the viewpoint of the civilian jury. I look at these juries and I have reasonableness doubt.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jay D. Homnick
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/30/reason-to-doubt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Nation on the Edge
- The End of the Castros?
- Consternated Conferences
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Chuck| 11.30.10 @ 8:06AM
Gary Condit and his wife still should be considered suspects. They had a huge personal motive and were close by the day of the murder. Condit's initial lie to police concerning his relationship with Chandra Levy should have brought in the FBI full force. Was Chandra Levy pregnant at the time of her death?
Sarah| 11.30.10 @ 11:59AM
You have got to be kidding me. Seriously? A man's life was ruined for nothing - all because he was a married congressman who lied about having an affair. The affair was over! He had no reason to kill her. The tabloids, however, made it seem like much more than it was.
It is utterly unreal that people out there still believe this kind of crap.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 7:46PM
Po' wittle Guandique, all he did was attempt to harm women; that he was unable to was no fault of his own-- they got away by running as fast as they could.
And now he gets three hots and a cot for the rest of his life-- sure beats living in Latin America.
His prison confession? we'll ignore that because he is a po' wittle inno-sent. Sent by God, right?
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 9:24PM
"Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist"
More of the latter than the former? Homnick is convincing concerning reasonable doubt in this case-- but not that Guandique is any sort of an innocent person. Find someone (such as Timothy Masters) who is thoroughly innocent, and you will have a better time garnering sympathy for prisoners.
Sean| 11.30.10 @ 8:55AM
A lot of this should be blamed on the jurors. They have a duty to not convict if the evidence isn't there. A lot of these snitches and informants also gets benefits from doing so. So the possibility of making stuff up is even greater on their part. I think they should be used to gather information that points to the right suspect, but their word shouldn't be used as evidence in court.
Bob K.| 11.30.10 @ 9:03AM
Don't forget how the jurors are selected!
If you have ever been on a jury panel and watched the process and who remains at the end of the "weeding" out process you will wonder how any just verdicts come about!
Occam's Tool| 11.30.10 @ 1:19PM
I have been an expert witness in many courtrooms regarding civil commitments. I theoretically support the Death Penalty, but do not in actual practice, because my real world experience has taught me not to trust judges, lawyers, and juries to know how to pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the bottom. It's a formulation in miniature of why I am a Conservative.
Carl F Thelin| 11.30.10 @ 7:04PM
Tool. I have the same background and I agree that as an expert witness I could see that the judge and jury chose to believe whatever attracted them them most. No question that "acting" or "speaking" skill will go a long way for attorneys and witnesses.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 9:27PM
Next we will read that Mumia is perhaps innocent.
OJ, too??
Frank Eisenhart| 11.30.10 @ 9:01AM
Your description of the evidence, which appears tailored to fit your thesis, is less than complete. First, I am at a loss to understand how any "mugging" can be done without violence. In fact, though the other two women were not seriously harmed, they were violently assaulted. Second, and probably most important, those muggings took place in Rock Creek Park, not far from where Levy's remains were found. Predators have their favorite hunting grounds, and I suspect that fact was not lost on the jury that convicted Guandique.
Steve A| 11.30.10 @ 11:49AM
Jay, I suggest you spring for some $$ for this guys appeal. Then, if he gets out, ship him in to live with your family for a bit. After your spouse or daughter is butchered & he confesses to a cellmate while serving time on an unrelated matter, be a champion of justice & try to get the evidence thrown out as unreliable. Jackass
JP| 11.30.10 @ 11:52AM
I put much of the blame on the trial judges. In most capital crimes, once the prosecution rests thier case, the defence lawyer can petition the judge to dismiss the charges before the defence presents thier case. This is usually done when the prosecution doesn't present a case in which the jury has a decent chance of judging. In most cases, the defence argues that the evidence is purely circumstantial, lacks concrete proof and motive. That is, it is not fair to expect a jury to render a just verdict.
We've seen a trend all over this nation where the prosecution indicts on the flimsiest evidence. It is a rare judge that dismisses cases on such counts. In the mean time, the defendent must somehow come up with the tens of thousands of dollars to defend himself against charges that have little or no physical evidence.
Frank,
In the bad old days, prosecutors had to come up with physical evidence that tied the victim to the assailant. A defendent's violent past makes a difference only if there is something more concrete to tie the assailant to the crime. The fact that the defendent had a violent past and is an illegal should not in and of itself by the determining factor. We are talking murder here, and not just muggings.
ThePaganTemple | 11.30.10 @ 11:52AM
@FrankEisenhart-
It was a bad choice of wording. I took it to mean that the victims did not suffer any physical harm. The whole thing smells to me. For one thing, he supposedly claimed to his jail house informant that the motive was not rape, but robbery. But a cursory look at Levy would probably have revealed her to have nothing on her worth stealing, other than a Walkman and possibly a pair of sunglasses. It's been a long time so my own memory might be faulty, but I seem to remember that she left her purse, keys, etc, in her apartment.
I don't think Condit was responsible for this, though. People forget that she worked as an intern for the Bureau of Prisons, and that is the most likely avenue in which to search for a suspect, yet it was barely broached, if at all. She was angry about losing her job there, and might have been having problems with one or more people she worked with.
Steve A| 11.30.10 @ 12:15PM
Do you people even take a glance at facts before posting here? She was wearing a fanny pack. The prosecution had more than just the cellmate claim he confessed to the crime. Several members of this loser's "gang" also confirm the admission. This was his chosen hunting ground for robbery of female victims. His confession to the cellmate matches evidence at the scene of the homicide. 12 independent jurors viewed all of the evidence & saw fit to put this guy away. Get a grip
RCV| 11.30.10 @ 1:42PM
You're right on, Steve. There is nothing more misinformed than second-guessing of jury verdicts by folks who weren't in the courtroom.
Steve A| 11.30.10 @ 2:44PM
RCV, You are correct, sir (with exception of OJ :))Hope all is well. Happy holidays.
RCV| 11.30.10 @ 6:09PM
Actually, we're in full agreement, even on that one. Best wishes to you and yours for the holiday and new year.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.30.10 @ 7:17PM
He attacked two other women in the same area and in a violent manner. Now he's convicted of something. Justice sometimes works in mysterious ways. But further, who cares? He's violent and we're better of if he's not on the street.
Claudia Monteverdi| 12.1.10 @ 5:14PM
Quandique or whatever his name is? For sure a skunk....did he kiill Chandra? Hell no, it's simply "tidy" to clean the damned case up for the authorities and other (cngressional) felons--we ALL know that Condid (that rotten fiendish son of a bitch) did it.....just as know that OJ butchered those two sad victims..just as we know..AND DON'T GIVE RAT'S ASS... that Bobby Blake did her in..but we all LIKE Bobby and hate the others...now, if all of my firm coinclusions mystify or irritate you, who cares? My conclusions are mine own, and summon me to a jury and I will briing my emotions and prejudices (I have a vat full) to the juror's box with me....As to Jay's recitaion of Jewiush Law....it sounds very logical to me...and remember, I know of what I speak..my best friends older brother is a damned LAWYER, so I sure ough to know---gibberish? Nope it's normal juror talk..and get this folks...hate it:? love it? whatever! it sure beats the other alternatives-----
I am dizz from so much erudition...need a twinky fast!
Claudia
PS..as usual I get a bit smarter every time I read a column by the Mighty JAY!