http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://cbs5.com/local/BART.
You probably remember the shooting of Oscar Grant on New Year's Eve by BART policeman Johannes Mehserle that was caught on a number of cell phone cameras. The cop is accused of murder, but the trial was moved from Alameda to LA County due to possible protests, a biased jury pool, and possible harm/tampering of the courtroom participants. Mehserle is defended by Attorney Michael Rains, who has defended the police often in his career, and has also represented Barry Bonds.
The jury selection process has begun, with about 250 LA residents (about 1/4 of them being black) filling out a paper questionnaire to tease out prejudice regarding race, crime, and law enforcement. Although both sides have agreed on the list of questions, there may not be much live questioning. The judge plans to select the jury in a matter of two days or so and then jump into opening statements, when jury selection for similar high-profile murder cases has taken weeks. The assigned judge, Superior Court Judge Robert Perry, has a reputation for expediency and keeping to a tight schedule. So that is raising some eyebrows. But each side is permitted to excuse one judge-selected juror for any reason other than possible bias.
In addition, the matter of admissible evidence is puzzling. The California evidence code states that "character evidence" is inadmissible for a trial of this nature. Some of you on this email list have JDs, so please chime in with more explanations and corrections if I misrepresent anything. Basically, the victim's past conduct during similar events as the night in question can't be used to explain his behavior/intent. Grant has had 3 felony convictions, and had resisted arrest during a prior altercation when he was being similarly cuffed on the ground, and was then tased. The judge felt that it would be a denial of Mehserle's Constitutional rights to bar this evidence that may cast doubt on his guilt, so he decided to supersede CA law, which is unusual.
On the other hand, Mehserle's questionable background will most likely be inadmissible. Apparently he has used a taser properly on duty before, which would cast some doubt on the accidental firearm discharge defense. Mehserle is also under investigation for physical contact with a black suspect, but since that litigation is pending, it is also inadmissible. It's also strange that if Mehserle was innocent, why would he refuse to participate in the BART police internal investigation and resign a week after the incident? Mehserle was mostly silent after the event, and during his first questioning by internal affairs, he never mentioned any taser. His "I thought I was using my taser" defense only emerged two days after the event, possibly after being coached by attorneys. And there are points such as a taser weighs about half as much as a loaded sidearm, and also has bright yellow markings on it that pistols lack. Plus there are the bystander cell phone videos, which seem to show Mehserle looking at his holster before reaching for his gun, suggesting cognizant use of deadly force.
Regarding the cell phone video footage, the judge's ruling is troubling. In general, jurors can evaluate impartial video evidence themselves and decide the facts based on their perceptions. But for the Mehserle trial, the judge granted the defense's request to have a video analysis expert testify on the video. They argue that the poor quality of the footage requires a video expert to "decipher" the events in question. So in this case, the expert opinion will be telling the jury what he thinks is going on in the video. Will the jury trust their own instincts, or defer to the views of an expert called by the defense?
So if Mehserle is acquitted or charged with a lesser manslaughter conviction, there will be probably be a lot of anger and some violence from the black and minority communities in the Bay Area (though the trial seems to be of very little interest to LA residents). Of course the trial hasn't even begun yet, and who knows what Mehserle will say on the stand, but already a couple judge rulings seem to be favoring the defendant.
