But this case was different.  It started as a traffic stop for a broken tail light.  When Officer Jeronimo Yanez approached the driver, Philando Castile, Castile informed the officer he was licensed to carry a gun and had one.  Within seconds, the officer fired five times and killed Philano Castile.  A dashboard video in the police car showed some of the incident.  Just after the shooting, Mr. Castile’s girlfriend filmed smart phone video also.

Probably motivated to some extent by the publicity and protests, the local County Attorney charged the officer with Involuntary Manslaughter—a low level of homicide.  The officer pled not guilty and the case went to trial.  After several days of trial and deliberation, the jury found the officer not guilty of all counts.  See the story in New York Times:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/police-shooting-trial-philando-castile.html?_r=0

I have practiced criminal law for 40 years and tried dozens of jury trials including homicides.  Many people wonder:  How could the jury find the Officer Jeronimo Yanez not guilty?

Here are some of the possible reasons:

1.  When we read or watch the videos of these events, we tend to look at both sides and weigh each one against the other to try and determine who’s at fault.  A jury doesn’t look at it that way.  They are instructed to look at the government’s evidence and determine if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeronimo Yanez committed a crime.
2. In addition, the media does not present facts that educate or inform us—instead, they present facts that are sensational.  This means we often don’t get the same, complete picture of the evidence that a jury does during a trial—which could lead to a very different conclusion.
3. After the verdict, one of the jurors spoke to the media and said that 10 out of the 12 jurors early on voted for an acquittal. That tells me the government’s case was weak from the beginning.  Perhaps, the case should never have been charged in the first place.
4. I still maintain that it’s hard to convict police officers acting in the exercise of their duties.  We give them a lot of discretion and the legal authority to use deadly force, when they determine it’s necessary.  As citizens, we also tend to support them when they carry-out their duties.

In all my years working in criminal law, I’ve known many police officers.  I can tell you that not only is this case a tragedy for the family of the victim, Philando Castile, but also for Officer Jeronimo Yanez and his family.  Not one police officer I’ve known has wanted to kill anyone.  If they do, it weighs on them for the rest of their lives.

The post Death, Jeronimo Yanez, and a Not Guilty Verdict appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  Juries are more representative of the community.  When I started trying cases before juries, they were selected from property owners and driver’s license records.  The result was juries of older, white people who generally lived in the suburbs.  Over the years. the local government has worked hard to pick people from other records.  The result has been jurors who are very diverse in all ways and more truly represent the community—which improves the criminal justice system.
2. When I started, there was hardly any attention paid to the female victims of domestic abuse.  Since then, the criminal justice system has developed new laws specifically aimed at punishing offenders and has also created many resources for the victims from victim/witness advocates to shelter protection and counseling for the victims.  This is another reason why the criminal justice system in better now.
3. The judges hearing cases were all older, male, and white with the exception of two white women.  Today, every race is represented, women, men, and different religions.  The more accurately represent the community.
4. Child protection used to be a minor, back-wash area of the juvenile court.  Parents didn’t even get lawyers if they couldn’t afford to hire their own.  Today, the parents and even children over 10 get free lawyers and the number of child protection cases brought into the criminal justice system has sky-rocketed.  The resources available for parents and children has expanded and has been successful in many cases to improve the criminal justice system.
5. The quality of judges is high.  Here’s another reason why the criminal justice system is better now.  In Minnesota, almost all judges are selected by the governor after a lengthy vetting process by a state-wide judicial selections board.  The result has been high quality candidates and little corruption.

When the media or people complain about the criminal justice system, there certainly are areas that could be improved.  On the other hand, these reasons are why the criminal justice system is better now that it has been in years.

If you’ve been to court, what’s your experience been?  What do you think?

The post Why the Criminal Justice System is Better Now appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.