” I think it’s bothersome when public officials make statements that appear to presume the guilt of a person who has only been arrested and charged with a crime and hasn’t even entered a plea yet.”
Alan Adashek, public defender.
Sometimes, when I am researching for another article, I come across items which leave me open-mouthed. This is one of those times. Here we go with another instalment from the circus surrounding the arrest, trial and conviction of Richard Ramirez.
.
We don’t need a trial..
Umm, yes, yes you do, that is the law.
Although, according to Los Angeles Mayor, Tom Bradley, no trial was necessary as he, along with everyone else, had already decided that Richard Ramirez was guilty.
“We don’t need to wait for an arbitrary legal process to run its course before handing out rewards. We’re satisfied that based on the evidence; we have the right man.”
Mayor Tom Bradley
This article shows that a fair trial in LA was not a possibility, and you can see why. “Good” public servant, Mayor Bradley, holding ceremonies, giving out awards, certificates and promising lots of lovely cash to those who were involved in the famous apprehension of the Night Stalker. There was even an off-road motorcycle given out, like sweets, with the promise that it wouldn’t have to be returned in the unlikely case that they didn’t get a conviction.
Who cares if he’d entered a plea, or got a trial date?
So do we, Richard, so do we..
We’re in the Money!
And out of the woodwork they came, hoping to cash in on the situation, as the media caravan trundled on.
And who got the biggest slice of that particular cake? Jesse Perez, a criminal, and associate of Felipe Solano and Ramirez, granted immunity by law enforcement, for leading them to the Jennings semi-automatic. And there hangs a tale worth telling! I would urge you to read THIS POST for detailed information about the chain of custody of the weapon in question. All roads do not lead to Rome, or Richard Ramirez!
“One guy called in and said, ‘I saw the Night Stalker on the freeway. Where do I get my money?’”
Saturation
Examining the nature of the publicity is perhaps the trial court’s
most important duty in assessing the prejudice of pretrial publicity. It is during this analysis that a trial court can assess to what degree the media was inflammatory or whether there has been prejudicial material publicised in the media that was not admissible at trial.
Indeed, counsel were able to collect 903 articles written about the case from the beginning of the Night Stalker murders through September 1st, 1989. This included 211 articles from the L.A. Times, 197 articles from the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 120 articles from the Los Angeles Daily News, 113 articles from the La Opinion, 108 articles from the Los Angeles Daily Breeze, and 154 articles from other smaller local newspapers. This number does not include additional articles submitted to the trial court from newspapers with less circulation.
Further, among just three major Los Angeles newspapers, 167 articles were written about Richard during his trial. A total of 97 photos of him also accompanied these prejudicial articles.
The Voice of Reason
Not That We’re Making a Big Thing About This, But News Is News…
- (1) “A trail of death and destruction”
- (2) “atrocities”
- (3) “terrible trauma”
- (4) “Spread terror,” “terrorized,” “terrified California
- residents,” “night of terror,” “really terrible.”
- (5) “Bloody rampage” and “savage assault.”
- (6) “seven-month crime spree.”
- (7) “string of slayings, rapes and attacks”
- (8) “string of sadistic nighttime murders”
- (9) “More horrendous than (the Hillside Strangler)”
- (10) “gruesome”
- (11) “grisly details,” “grisly attacks, “grisly series of attacks”
“The entire tenor of the coverage reflects the view that Mr. Ramirez
Dr Edward Bronson, social scientist. From the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus
was guilty and deserving of death, even if the stories often included
de regueur terms such as ‘alleged’ or ‘charged.’ One reading
through these articles is left with an abiding belief that the writers
are convinced of Ramirez’s guilt.”
All this, and this is even without mentioning or reproducing the hundreds of times “Satan”, “Satanic”, “Devil-worshipping AC/DC fan”, “Rituals” and a myriad of similar terms were printed, talked about on TV, and circulated to the horrified, enthralled and equally fascinated population. From THIS population, the jury would be chosen. From THIS, credible eyewitness testimonies were expected to be untainted. (More on media influence can be found HERE.)
A defendant is innocent until proven guilty, at least, that’s how it should be, however in Richard’s case, it was flipped. The onus was on the defence counsel to prove he was innocent, the world already having judged him guilty, even before he set foot inside the courtroom.
For despite all of this media frenzy, public ceremonies and offers of cash for information, the motion to move venues, from Los Angeles to a less polluted location, was denied. Denied; and the jury, which was not sequestered, was exposed to it all.
How can this help an inflamed jury consider the evidence (or lack thereof) put before them and rationally weigh it up? The seriousness of this can not be stressed enough. However impartial they may consider themselves to be, the truth is, they were not. They were allowed to take all of these sensationalised news articles in on a daily basis. It was allowed to seep in, day by day, hour by hour.
Jury Sequestration
The isolation of a jury to avoid accidental or deliberate tainting of a jury by exposing them to outside influence or information that is not admissible in court. They are not allowed to read the newspapers, watch TV, or have internet access, and may have only limited contact with others, and even with each other. Sequestration is most commonly used in high-profile trials, in which media coverage and public conversations, may be so ubiquitous that it is difficult for the jury to avoid. Trials do not come with a higher profile than this one. In comparison, at the trial of OJ Simpson, in 1995, the jury spent 265 days in sequestration.
“Media reports of evidence or activities not admissible at trial are especially prejudicial to a prospective jury. Not only will prospective jurors be told that certain acts or facts are linked to a defendant, they will also be inclined to think the defendant is deliberately hiding those facts when they never come out during the trial. A jury may therefore weigh uncharged and even untrue crimes when assessing the guilt
From the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus
or punishment for a defendant. For these reasons, the federal courts regard publicity of inadmissible material as a factor weighing in favour of presuming prejudice. The publicity in Petitioner’s case contained multiple stories and accounts of facts that Petitioner’s jury was never entitled to hear in the courtroom”
But Who Cares?
I mean as long as the mayor gets to give out awards because he doesn’t think an actual trial is needed, as long as people can call up and claim the money because they may (or may not) have seen Ramirez on the freeway, or outside Bob’s Big Boy restaurant, or indeed, down the chip shop, swearing he’s Elvis. What does it matter? He was already found guilty before he even set foot in any courthouse. He never stood a chance.
And they call it justice.
“They tragically failed in their most important duty, to report the truth in an unbiased and truthful manner”.
Richard Ramirez
“If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice“.
Sophocles
The railroading of Richard Ramirez.
~ Jay ~
Expendable For A Cause. 
Leave a comment