I love the law. I love the Constitution and its protections.
I hate how prosecutors twist scenarios and introduce irrelevant information into trials -- and how judges allow such abuse of our system of jurisprudence. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Whatever happened to "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? How can juries make such terrible decisions?
Yesterday's (January 6, 2023) conviction of a mother for the actions of her son is just beyond the pale. Jennifer Crumbly, mother of convicted school shooter Ethan Crumbly, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the four deaths of the people Ethan killed during his rampage.
The case hinged on the definition of grossly negligent -- when a person either (1) commits an act that, as a result, a rational, reasonable person can foresee a negative consequence or (2) fails to carry out a duty that, as a result, a rational, reasonable person can foresee a negative consequence of failing to perform that duty.
Jennifer Crumbly was not a gold-star mother; neither was she grossly negligent. There was no possible way that she could have foreseen her son taking a gun from the house and committing murder at the high school. In fact, one teacher who locked eyes with Ethan during the shooting testified that she could not believe Ethan was shooting people. During the trial, both the judge and the prosecution made inappropriate comments within earshot of the jury.
Jennifer Crumbly was not convicted on the facts of the case. She was convicted in the Court of Public Opinion. Certainly the community was traumatized by the shooting. Despite the shooter being sent to prison for life without parole, the community -- aka the DA -- looked for another person or persons to blame. Ethan's mother was convicted; Ethan's father will be on trial next month for the same charge.
This is a miscarriage of justice by prosecutorial abuse as well as bias in the jury. The jury foreperson could not give a rational reason for the conviction. The charges never should have been brought; Jennifer Crumbly never should have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Jennifer Crumbly was convicted by the court of public opinion. In this case, jurors might have been afraid to send a "not guilty" verdict for fear of community condemnation for not exacting the desired revenge for the school shooting. Never mind that the actual shooter in
The Crumbly case can be added to other recent cases where justice was not served. The Alec Murdaugh murder case in South Carolina is another miscarriage of justice. Murdaugh was by admission a liar and a thief, but he did not murder his wife and son. There was no murder weapon, no DNA, and the phone data as well as a witness place him somewhere other than where the murders happened. The ballistics of the shooting of the two victims belies there being only one shooter. Plus, the chief SLED investigator admitted under oath that he lied to the grand jury. The judge allowed in evidence of Murdaugh's financial crimes which he did not deny but had no relevance to the case. Despite all of that, Alec Murdaugh was convicted of murder. The Murdaugh case was publicized, and a network made a documentary about it -- before the trial. The Murdaugh family's notoriety in the area, added to the publicity of the murders, produced another conviction in court by a biased jury. Later evidence would point to jury tampering by the Clerk of Court. This is a case of conviction without evidence -- certainly without evidence pointing to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The third case of juries that failed in their task is the Zachariah Anderson case. Anderson was convicted of murdering his ex's boyfriend. There was no body (the decedent could be enjoying life on a beach somewhere). There was no murder weapon. There was no DNA evidence. There were no witnesses. The prosecution's story had Anderson murdering the decedent and carrying his body, wrapped in a rug, to Anderson's work van and disposing of the body somewhere. However, the decedent was taller and much heavier than Anderson and Anderson had a medically documented bad back. Anderson could not have done what the prosecution said he did. How could a jury of competent people convict a person for murder without evidence? Obviously, competence was not a criterion when the jury was chosen.
Three cases. The first case had a conviction without a legal basis. The second and third were convictions based on no evidence. In those cases, there are murderers still at large.
Whatever happened to the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Whatever happened to prosecuting someone based on the law, rather than based on the community's desire to exact revenge? Whatever happened to judges maintaining a strict legal atmosphere in the courtrooms rather than allowing irrelevant information in front of juries?
My legal mentors say that anyone who goes to trial, even if they are pure as the driven snow innocent, has a 50/50 chance of being convicted because juries are unpredictable animals. Juries should not be unpredictable. They should be predicted to follow the law and decide according to the law, not according to public opinion or the desire to exact revenge.
What can we do to ensure justice is served when it comes to juries? Perhaps a mandatory class on how to apply the law before a case starts? Perhaps instruction before the case on what guilt beyond a reasonable doubt means?
I worry about our system of jurisprudence. When a truly innocent person can have a high probably of being convicted, our system is broken.
