This isn’t a current events blog — hell, this blog isn’t even current — but we had a current event here that I can’t let go by without a comment.
Lauretta Codrington hit the national news last week when she a) was one of two holdout jurors who voted not to convict a young man of murder, resulting in a mistrial, and b) went public with her reasons why. To say she’s been “criticized” for her decision, well, that’s putting it mildly. She even had to take down her website because some of her clients were getting hate mail.
Here’s the story, in case you missed it on the evening news. Laura Dickinson, a student at Eastern Michigan University, was found dead in her dorm room, half naked and with Orange Taylor’s semen on her. EMU officials covered it up, insisting that she died of natural causes. When the truth came out several high-ranking officials were fired, including EMU’s president. Shock, outrage, national news coverage — emotions ran high, as I’m sure you can imagine.
Last week, Orange Taylor’s trial. His main line of defense was that Laura was already dead when he entered her room. He argued that she died of a pre-existing heart condition. The medical examiner could not confirm or deny. And for Lauretta and one other juror, this was enough to raise a reasonable doubt. Again: shock, outrage, national news coverage, and emotions running even higher.
I have two things to say about this.
One, I have known Lauretta for many years — our sons have been friends since first grade, and she is also my client — and she is a woman of absolute integrity. To accuse her of grabbing the spotlight in order to get publicity (as someone did on a blog which I will not link to) is simply ridiculous. The accusation that her vote was motivated by racism, ditto.
And two, listen up, people. You weren’t there. You did not see the evidence. You did not hear the testimony. You. Weren’t. There. What on earth gives you the right to second-guess her? It’s been a while since I went to law school but I do remember that appellate judges are not supposed to overturn a jury’s findings of fact, particularly with regard to evidence, testimony, credibility, etc. And the reason for that is because they weren’t there.
I have the utmost sympathy for the victim’s family, who in addition to the loss of their daughter have now suffered what must feel like a double indignity. I also have the utmost admiration for a woman who followed her conscience under extreme pressure. I hope that if I were ever in a similar situation I would have the strength to do the same.
4 Comments
What a difficult situation for everyone. My husband was on a jury for a sex crime once, and the trial ended before a verdict when the defendant pled down. When my husband talks about it, he is always careful to say that he never heard the defense present its case, so he did not see all the evidence.
Interesting, isn’t it, the way people just go off without knowing all the facts?
I’m no fan of EMU’s coverup (if that’s what it was, and I’m thinking so) but like you, I wasn’t there.
I don’t have all the information. I don’t anything about this except what I’ve seen on the news. And that’s not nearly enough.
(You aren’t thinking fondly of law school, are you? BECAUSE OMG, I’m tired.).
S
I hadn’t heard anything about this case but have quite a bit of experience in the jury box so was interested enough to Google for more info. I cannot believe the horrible things being said about this woman. It’s unbelievable.
Because of all my jury time, I have heard the lectures over and over and feel that I understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and of how it’s the prosecution’s job to make the case. If a jury member has a nagging feeling that the defendant is probably guilty but the prosecution has not done its job and can’t adequately prove it, the jury member simply can’t vote that a person is guilty because of that nagging feeling! Or because the defendant has a history of criminal behavior; the jury is coached to only judge THIS case, not the defendant’s life!
I feel for Lauretta Codrington, I really do. It had to be SO hard to hold her ground.
Well, I *was* there and I have no idea where the lack of evidence is that she is talking about. In listening to some interviews, she sounds like she wants a negative proven, and doesn’t really listen carefully to the testimony of some witnesses.
But that’s why there are 12 people there and that Taylor isn’t off, he’s just being tried again. The system didn’t fail, but it sure is frustrating.
Though I may disagree with her opinion of the facts, and certainly with her conclusion…especially sitting in the same room at the same time…I in no way condone the hell she’s probably going through by being attacked by skinheads. Not fun I’m sure and nobody in a democracy deserves that for serving on what all of us should be doing.
I’m sure had the tables turned those skinheads would be doing the exact same thing they are *accusing* her of.