The conviction of John White for manslaughter for the death of Daniel Cicciaro is an odd subject for an editorial on the first day of the New Year at Newsday.  The gist of the editorial is that the new defense strategy is to taint the conviction as one motivated by race is misguided. 

Yet, despite the rhetoric of civil rights activists arguing that the case “smacks of 1950s Mississippi” and vague claims by some members of the jury that they were pressured, there is scant evidence, so far, that racism determined the outcome of the Miller Place case.

This statement mixes separate issues, and unfortunately muddies things of real impact with a rhetorical strategy that will ultimately fail.  The “vague claims by some members of the jury” don’t relate to some racial overtone, but to an ordinary, basic problem that has long existed in our legal system.  We pretend that it doesn’t, because America is vested in the jury system, and admitting that it is a fundamentally flawed system would call every conviction (and every acquittal) into question.  The “majesty” of the law would be revealed as something of a farce, and that would make for a very messy situation.

Let me make this clear:  The legal is not a farce.  It just isn’t nearly as good as we pretend it is.  It has some very serious institutional problems that no one has been able to fix.  We mask it in grandiose platitudes that usually suffice to quiet the masses, because admitting that we have a system that fails to ensure a fair and proper outcome would wreak havoc.

John White’s jury reached its verdict for a fairly common reason.  Time ran out.  The judge gave an Allen charge, with is a nice way of saying that she pressured the jury to reach a decision, any decision, rather than hang.  Words are thrown in to the back end of the Allen charge to tell jurors that they need not give up their strongly held beliefs, but the mass of the instruction is for the minority to listen to the majority and give in.  The threat is that they judge will not respect their “strongly held beliefs” by keeping them locked in their jury room until they reach a verdict. 

The jurors are regular people, with things to do and a life to lead.  They are forced to chose between their lives, and their families, and holding firm in the face of an angry mob for a person they don’t know who may have done something wrong.  The quiet subtext is that while some jurors may doubt guilt, they aren’t sufficiently sure that they are prepared to go to the mat.  Deciding between conflicting stories is almost impossible, even though we pretend that anyone can do it.  Every juror fears, in her heart, that she will make the wrong decision.  The most persuasive thing in a trial is the support of others that the choice is correct.  There is always strength in numbers.

Spinning John White’s conviction into a race issue is not only a dubious strategy, but one that detracts from a real and serious issue.  In fact, it is rather remarkable that the conviction shows no sign of taint because of the race of the shooter and shootee.  If anything, the racial implications ran in John White’s favor, with a drunken Italian kid coming after a Black kid because of an erroneous assumption that he threatened to rape a white girl.  It tends to vilify the victim far more than John White, who did nothing more than try to protect his home and family.  Except for the detail that John White’s gun killed Daniel Cicciaro, he is the more sympathetic person.

If the White conviction causes a real discussion of the failings of the jury system to reach a sound verdict, it will serve a higher function.  This case points to only one of the many flaws of the system.  Others, such as the  Joseph Cammarano conviction, point to the silliness of jury instructions and the ridiculous notion that reading a lengthy set of instructions in pseudo-legalese somehow enlightens 12 normal people as to the nuance of their duty.   Deliberations is dedicated to the pervasive issue of inherent bias on juries, which for all our tricks and tribulations, continues to elude detection.

Perhaps the scholars can put aside their deep thoughts on  due process at the Ministry of Magic and focus a bit on how to address more mundane issues, like juries.  But then, the subject has been done a million times (to no avail) and would require them to dirty themselves in the practical world of litigation, an unfamiliar place. 

There is one very important, and uplifting thing, about the John White conviction.  For all its flaws, it did not reflect a jury inclined to side with a white man and convict a Black man.  So we are moving forward in that respect.  Slowly, but forward.