From the NY Times: A Brooklyn judge halted deliberations late Thursday in a police brutality trial after one of the jurors told the others that Officer Richard Kern, the main defendant, had previously been accused of misconduct — allegations that were not introduced during the trial and that the judge described as “misinformation.”
I feel as though a situation like this has to be looked at on both sides. Someone’s background is important to know, especially with a case like this. However, that does not necessarily mean that the person is guilty the second time. There have been many cases where people were wrongly accused. In example, on an episode of Law & Order, there was an elementary school teacher who was accused of molesting young girls and he was arrested because of a past arrest on the same basis. It then turned out that the second time he was innocent, but by then his life had already been ruined. Even though this is true, I believe In this specific case, the background should matter because even though as a human we all have the same rights, this is an officer who is supposed to be protecting the citizens and not hurting them. If someone is breaking a law, they should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. So if the officer broke the law, he should not be given any special treatment just because of his title.
I agree with tsherpa1 and mpina. Since Officer Richard Kern has been exonerated from the past accusations of manhandling and misconduct more than once, it should be recognized that he will possibly have a continuance of abusing his powers. I think it is the court’s responsibility to retrieve all of Officer Kern’s past trials beforehand so the jury will not be surprised by the information juror # 6 announced.
This article reminds me of the Plessey Vs. Ferguson case. This case was brought up later on in the Brown Vs. Board of Eduation of Topeka to serve justice and equality. The Brown case refutes the Plessey Vs. Ferguson case by stating that “seperate but equal” is wrong.
I actually disagree with the notion that previous accusations and allegations should be included in the trial. I feel like many people, myself included sometimes, are very impressionable and easily influenced. If previous allegations were included in the trial, the defendant would receive an unfair and biased trial. Some jurors, if not all, might see the previous allegations as an opportunity to assume the defendant’s guilt. I think we must remember that we do not know what goes through the mind of anyone except ourselves and are not sure if the jurors have good intentions, or just want to get home early.
I saw something similar to this in an episode of The Deep End on Thursday night were a young man, who was the son of an influential man and was known as a drug addict, was accused of murder while being under the influence of drugs. It was revealed that the young drug addict had recently straightened his life out and that the victim had not been murdered at all, let alone by the drug addict. So, I do not feel one’s history is necessarily a strong basis or strong evidence of current guilt.
I agree with both of you, in theory. This seems to be a case in which the letter of the law is in conflict with the spirit of the law. This is a problem we will definitely confront again in our readings. Can you think of cases in which revealing past offenses to a jury might prevent justice from being served?
I agree with tsherpa1, previous allegations all ways have to be brought up especially when the defendant has a pattern of misconduct. Justice should have persistent record, information that is only present in the court of law when its convenient to the defendant is cheating. There is no way justice can truly be served if we simply serve a defendant on a record starting from zero each time.
I think that a lot of people would agree with you. It will be interesting to see whether or not this incident interferes with the delivery of justice, or whether the outcome of the revelation is just.
Officer Richard Kern’s past allegations should be included in the current deliberation as it gives the juries, the judge and the public a better picture of him. His past misconducts shows a certain pattern of him, which if ignored now, can and could be repeated in the near future.