More than a year ago, a car slammed in the police cruiser driven by Nassau Police Officer Kenneth Baribault, leaving him with massive brain injury and paralysis on his right side. It was most assuredly a tragedy. But what happened at the trial of the man accused of driving drunk and causing the injury was an outrage of a different sort.
From Newsday:
From Newsday:
Baribault, 30, of Nesconset, appeared Tuesday at the trial of Rahiem Griffin, the man accused of drunken driving and slamming into Baribault’s patrol car on May 18, 2008, as he was arresting another driver for drunken driving. But Baribault did not testify. Rather, he was asked to take the stand while his doctor testified to show the jury what he is, and is not, capable of doing.
Could there be a more flagrant appeal to the prejudice and sympathy of the jury? Contrary to this quote, Baribault’s neuropsychologist, Philip Defina, “questioned” him about what he cannot do. The pain of watching this must have been unbearable.
As Baribault, who was brought into the courtroom in a wheelchair, demonstrated almost silently on the stand, some jurors sighed deeply, while others shook their heads.
That tears didn’t well in their eyes is amazing. I doubt that I could have kept a dry eye had I been sitting on that jury. Human suffering is deeply disturbing, and we are all, no matter how hardened, subject to its affect. Which is why this was so fundamentally wrong. Why the prosecution would try to prejudice the jury is obvious. Ethically wrong, but obvious. But why would a judge allow it?
Judge Jerald Carter told jurors that Baribault was being allowed to take the stand only as evidence that he received “serious physical injury” as a result of the crash. He said that “sympathy or empathy” are not to enter into their deliberations.
This is up there in the pantheon of ridiculous trial rulings. As if the physician’s testimony about massive brain damage and paralysis wouldn’t have been sufficient. As if the defense wouldn’t have stipulated that Baribault suffered serious physical injury. As if the jury could disregard the prejudice because the judge told them to.
And what does crusading District Attorney Kathleen Rice, who just happens to be for re-election, have to say about this play to prejudice?
As to the defendant, Rahiem Griffin, the story discloses no particular reason why he’s chosen to go to trial, or what, if any, defense he’s got to offer. Not having followed the case, I’m unaware of how the case reached this status. Chances are pretty good that he’s gone to trial for no better reason than the prosecution offered him no other option. Plea to the charge and take a sentence of life plus cancer?
But no matter how clear the crime, how strong the proof, how tragic the victim, this is not the way to conduct a trial. If ever there was evidence where prejudice outweighed its probative value, this is it. By a mile. By a thousand miles. It’s not a matter of letting Griffin escape the consequences of his actions, but a matter of allowing a jury to see “evidence”, the only purpose of which is to inflame and prejudice them.
If Baribault “honored” the badge, the district attorney and judge dishonored the law. What an embarrassment.
H/T The Blind Guy
And what does crusading District Attorney Kathleen Rice, who just happens to be for re-election, have to say about this play to prejudice?
District Attorney Kathleen Rice said what Baribault did Tuesday took “bravery beyond words.”What the heck is she talking about? Perhaps Rice misunderstood the question? What at first appears to be an obvious non sequitur is merely another sound bite with no apparent connection to anything beyond mouthing words that she thinks people want to hear.
“Today, he honored the badge,” she said.
As to the defendant, Rahiem Griffin, the story discloses no particular reason why he’s chosen to go to trial, or what, if any, defense he’s got to offer. Not having followed the case, I’m unaware of how the case reached this status. Chances are pretty good that he’s gone to trial for no better reason than the prosecution offered him no other option. Plea to the charge and take a sentence of life plus cancer?
But no matter how clear the crime, how strong the proof, how tragic the victim, this is not the way to conduct a trial. If ever there was evidence where prejudice outweighed its probative value, this is it. By a mile. By a thousand miles. It’s not a matter of letting Griffin escape the consequences of his actions, but a matter of allowing a jury to see “evidence”, the only purpose of which is to inflame and prejudice them.
If Baribault “honored” the badge, the district attorney and judge dishonored the law. What an embarrassment.
H/T The Blind Guy
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suppose Judge Carter might be up for re-election soon, like the only capable of speaking in campaign mode Rice.
The Nassau County DA has struck again pretending that she has a clue of what the phrase “a fair trial” means. Actually, why do I think she cares? As for the ruling of the judge . . . do not even get me started.
why should prosecution have power of its evidence undermined by cold stipulations?
That’s the right question. The answer is because it wasn’t offered as evidence, but to prejudice. The prosecution is not entitled to prejudice the defendant to obtain a conviction.
I don’t know enough about this case, or trials in general, to answer this question, so I’ll ask it: if the actual, legitimate evidence that the crime happened and that the defendant is the guy who did it is clearly sufficient, why trot out the horror show? Does the prosecutor do it for the psychological benefit of the victim? For political advantage? To seal the deal? Because all the other ki — prosecutors do it? Forgetting, for a moment, the rights of the accused, there has to be some reason to put the horribly injured guy through that, even if it isn’t good enough. Is it really just to seal the deal?
It’s hard, if not impossible, to see into the dark, smelly, gooey mind of a District Attorney. It could be any, or all, of those reasons. I don’t know Rice well enough to have an opinion, but to the extent I know of her, it’s to gain headlines, highlight her zeal in going after drunk drivers (a cornerstone of her campaign) and seal the deal. If she lost, it would be humiliating.
I suspect that once Rice has been in office long enough, there will be a string of reversals from the appellate division on various of her headline grabbing cases. I don’t know that those would be humiliating, as I don’t think Newsday covers those things in quite the same fashion, but eventually its got to matter, right?
I suspect you will be right on both counts.
Not having been at either the scene or the trial, I don’t presume to have an opinion on whether or not the defendant was guilty. But I would hope that every jury contains at least one person who, like myself, recognizes that the fact that a (real or alleged) victim suffered a terrible loss is not even slightly relevant to the question of whether or not the defendant did it.
I would like to see evidence of this sort restricted to the penalty phase of the trial (and if non-capital trials don’t have a separate penalty phase, they should, even if the jury doesn’t play a role in sentencing).