From: Palcewski-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 07:35:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: PLC: Woodward


The talk shows--on CNN especially--have put on lawyers, former prosecutors,
former judges. While some come down hard on either side, most say at minimum
that Louise should be held accountable for the death of the baby. There seems
to be some agreement that the defense erred terribly in insisting the jury
not consider a manslaughter charge.  In other words, Louise is in a mess now
because her lawyers took a risk and lost.  

Public opinioin seems to lean toward the view that the prosecutor overcharged
the case perhaps because of political ambition.  Also the public seems (to me
anyway) to believe it's the legal complexity of the case and defense lawyers'
strategy backfiring is the source of Louise's problem rather than a "failure"
of the system, as some argued during the OJ trial.   

>From my perspective as a former newspaper reporter covering federal trials,
this is a case where it is easy to form judgments based on sympathy rather
than on an examination of the evidence and Massachusetts criminal statues.
 But I happen to agree with Barry Schek (sp?) who insists "reasonable doubt"
has been introduced.

In any event, the judge is expected to make a ruling on various defense
motions today, in which he might set aside the jury's verdict (unlikely) or
order a new trial (unlikely), to reduce the charge and penalty to
manslaughter (possible), or deny all defense motions (possible). What's
interesting is that he will publish his decision not at the clerk's office
(thus inviting another mob scene covered by the world's media) but rather on
the internet.  It ought to make some interesting reading because this
particular judge appears to be highly intelligent, even handed, and
interested in preserving the higher principles of the law.

  


     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---