Imagine that you are sitting on a jury and the case before you is about felonious invasion of privacy. To be specific, the defendant (who also happens to be the governor of your state) is charged with tying his mistress to some exercise rings, partially undressing her, and taking pictures of her semi-nude. Since the mistress consented to being tied up, the only charge presented is that the governor invaded her privacy by taking the photos. Now add in the following:
1. there are no copies of the photos available.
2. the governor denies taking any photos.
3. the woman was blindfolded and doesn't remember seeing a camera or a phone.
4. the woman testifies that she's not sure if her memory of the photo taking is correct or if she dreamed that.
5. the entire prosecution is based upon a conversation in which the woman told her husband that she remembers seeing a flash through the blindfold which must have been a flash for a camera. (The husband recorded that conversation.)
6. the prosecutor bringing the case is a Democrat and the governor is a Republican.
Would you ever conclude that the governor is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Could you ever be certain that the photos were actually taken? Would you believe that what the woman told her husband was the actual truth as opposed to some story she stated to try to avoid his anger at her cheating?
Let me put it this way: there's certainly a possibility that the governor did all of which he is accused. Nevertheless, there is no way in the world that one could be certain beyond a reasonable doubt of the governor's guilt. He has to be acquitted. Indeed, were the jury to find the governor guilty, the judge would have to reverse and dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
And yes, this is a real story. The governor in question is Eric Greitens of Missouri.
1. there are no copies of the photos available.
2. the governor denies taking any photos.
3. the woman was blindfolded and doesn't remember seeing a camera or a phone.
4. the woman testifies that she's not sure if her memory of the photo taking is correct or if she dreamed that.
5. the entire prosecution is based upon a conversation in which the woman told her husband that she remembers seeing a flash through the blindfold which must have been a flash for a camera. (The husband recorded that conversation.)
6. the prosecutor bringing the case is a Democrat and the governor is a Republican.
Would you ever conclude that the governor is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Could you ever be certain that the photos were actually taken? Would you believe that what the woman told her husband was the actual truth as opposed to some story she stated to try to avoid his anger at her cheating?
Let me put it this way: there's certainly a possibility that the governor did all of which he is accused. Nevertheless, there is no way in the world that one could be certain beyond a reasonable doubt of the governor's guilt. He has to be acquitted. Indeed, were the jury to find the governor guilty, the judge would have to reverse and dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
And yes, this is a real story. The governor in question is Eric Greitens of Missouri.
No comments:
Post a Comment