Prosecutors' Morbid Neckties Add to Criticism

The New York Times ^ | 01-05-03 | JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

[smoking camels]

how do you REALLY feel about this? come on... don't be shy...

LOL

[Dan Day]

When Lawrence Jacobs walked into the courtroom a few weeks ago, he couldn't believe his eyes. There was a noose swinging from the prosecutor's chest.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

[Momaw Nadon]

[TheGrimReaper]

I must insist on some royalties on these ties.

[Devil_Anse]

The prosecutors shouldn't have been wearing such neckwear in the courtroom. It was unprofessional. The prosecutors' personal views on capital punishment should not be a factor brought to the attention of the jury.

I know of a case that was overturned partly because of what a judge did in front of the jury. A child testified against the defendant. When she finished her testimony, the judge (N.O. Judge Miriam Waltzer) reportedly gave her a little bag of candy, and a smile. The judge didn't do this b/c she liked the content of the child's testimony, she was just being nice, I think.

It was successfully argued that this action, done in front of the jury, might have suggested to them that the judge (the authority figure) somehow approved of the child's testimony against the defendant, and that this testimony was thought by the judge to be especially good and believable.

Having said that, I agree with the poster who said, essentially, "The son ends too lives, and this father is offended by NECKTIES????" Hello? Two people were slaughtered in their home, and a necktie with a rope on it is deemed unbearably cruel? Come now.

This case has apparently passed the selection committee (being facetious, don't know if there is or isn't such a committee) of Amnesty Int'l. and The Worldwide Liberal Fraternal Organization--people who think that the only issue that has ever had any importance in the entire history of mankind is that some whites have been extremely mean to some black people during some eras. They have decided to make Lawrence Jacobs a cause celebre. Do a google on this D.A.'s name (Paul Connick) and you will find correspondence/coverage to and about him in Swedish, among other things. And you will find heartfelt letters about this case, written by British students. This is one of their fashionable "causes." Just like Mumia Abu Jamal.

And look at the defiant stance of that father in that picture. Maybe he's one of those parents who, when their little darling got in some minor trouble, always assumed it was the teacher or storekeeper or rec center manager who was "picking on" their son. The type of parent who goes down to the school, store, or rec center in high dudgeon, to give that adult "a piece of my mind." That sort of upbringing, in which your parent is always telling you you are the victim of some mean authority figure, can indeed create a monster.

I guess Dad doesn't concede that it was his son who actually murdered the people. But no one seems to deny that they robbed them. Isn't he the least bit ashamed that his son would violently rob someone?

[Devil_Anse]

Your hypothetical differs in a very key fact from the actual incident to which this article devotes about one or two sentences--the crime.

"Mr. Jacobs, then 16, and a childhood friend, Roy Bridgewater, then 17, both black, burst into an occupied home in Marrero, a white suburb. The teenagers stole guns and jewelry and raced away in a minivan." In other words, they were working in concert. Together. As partners. They came in together, and they left together.

In your hypothetical, one person does the crime, unknown to the other person, who then appears on the scene and is thought to have done the crime. That's a very different situation.

In fact, that difference would certainly be noted when it came down to deciding whether the law considered the two people to be equally guilty.

I know of a case in which a group of about 5 black teenagers burst into a black home. In the home were a number of middle-aged black adults. They were using drugs. The "teens" made them all strip down to their underwear. They robbed them. The "teens" had some big, powerful guns. Then the "teens" fled. As the little gang was running away, some of the victims came to the door and started shooting at them. Some of the "teens" shot back as they were running away. One of the "teens" (the robbers) was shot dead in his tracks. Guess who went on trial for murder, because of his death? His fellow robbers. Yes--even though the bullet came from the gun of one of the victims. It was their robbery scheme that, in the beginning, caused the "teen's" death. No one would have been shooting at them if they hadn't been running away from a violent robbery.

[Devil_Anse]

Notice how the story makes a point of telling us they were "both black," and that Marrero is (supposedly) a "white suburb."

Before anyone goes visualizing Marrero as some ritzy, Beverly Hills-looking, super-high-income type place, let me say that it looks more working class to me. And I definitely don't recall it being all white.

Isn't if funny how race is suddenly a KEY factor? When, any other day, people who read and write the NYT would be outraged at a crime report that stated something like: "A black man approximately 6' tall, wearing a black stocking cap and a white jacket, robbed a white woman aged 56, in the K-Mart parking lot." But now, suddenly, we're SUPPOSED to pay attention to race.

And why would a hangman's noose be considered "racist?" Did the tie depict the noose around a black man's neck, with little X's over his eyes? That's not what I read. Currently, I am reading a book called "Bloodletters and Bad Men." It's a compendium of various criminals' histories. So far, every criminal mentioned has been white. Almost all those listed as executed, before 1950 or so, were listed as having been HANGED. Yes, there is a history of lynchings in which black men were hanged. Guess what? More white men, both lynch victims and criminals, have been hanged in this country. So why is a hangman's noose, WITHOUT MORE, considered a racist symbol?

And notice the ludicrous way in which the writer baldly states that the two men did the home invasion and robbery, but then switches to the mysterious passive voice, saying the victims were "found dead." Gee, we need a super detective to figure out how they died, don't we? Murder-suicide, you think?

[eno_]

You are right it is at least borderline unprofessional, but it depends on the circumstances. This sounds like a slam-dunk case that is only going to trial because it is a capital case. If the prosecutors were in a case that had any true element of contest about it, I would have more of a problem with the ties.

[BenLurkin]

IMO it was definitely unproffessional and not too bright either. I've seen "gag" ties at appearances (e.g. Case Management Conference, etc.) but never at trial. What's worse, defense counsel should have immediately advised the clerk that he wished to speak to the judge on the record and outside the presence of the jury at which time he should have made his prompt objection.

Again, its just my opinion but this is more evidence, as if any were needed, that lawyers are NOT all smart people.

[pgkdan]

You're right. I regretted posting that almost as soon as I hit the button. I also said the man's son was the only killer in the court room...stupidly ignoring the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Thanks for calling me on it, it was a stupid thing to post.

[M. Peach]

I'll bet you're a conservative - it is truly refreshing and admirable to see one admitting they made a mistake. It's mostly liberals that refuse to back down and try to defend the indefensible.

[M. Peach]

Your point is well taken, however I was just reminded of this case and saw a comparison which you so eloquently pointed out the differences. I just thought post # 12 was an interesting dillemma for a jury to decide.

Would you agree with the jury in that case - deciding to let them both go? I think marajade spun out of answering my question directly, but you as a juror (or possibly a defendant) - what would you decide?

[Pharmboy]

Yep...part of me definitely agrees with your sentiments. They SHOULD be more professional and dispassionate. Then there's the emotional side of me which says "Yeah...rub theie faces in it...the !#$!% murderers!"

[Pharmboy]

Interesting point...you are likely correct.

[Pharmboy]

Well-said, M. I am now on your side and the other clear heads on this thread. Also agree: that's what makes FR the best site on the web.

[Pharmboy]

LOL!

[Devil_Anse]

If there wasn't the evidence to tie either one of them to the killing, yes, they should be found not guilty.

I wouldn't think they'd be tried together, though.

I appreciate the courteous manner of your reply.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...Jefferson Parish, which actually has a low murder rate..."

You beat me to it. That stuck out like a sore thumb.

[snowstorm12]

"I mean, these guys with their ties act like death is a joke," he said. "And that's what's crazy. They're the ones calling me a cold-blooded killer."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Devil_Anse]

You know what bothers me, though? It is the way this out-of-town newspaper extrapolates--from a tasteless necktie, mind you--that there is a "culture" or something of "not caring," or "bloodthirstiness," or whatever, in that whole office.

If the ties clearly show a hangman's noose, that's not appropriate courtroom wear, even for a slam-dunk case. OTOH, if the tie is one of the defendant's main issues, sounds like his appeal is in trouble. I think his attorneys SHOULD try to make an issue of it, just to do their job.

But back to the other thing. It's like the liberal establishment, the ones typified by Amnesty Int'l., are targetting this place, this D.A.'s office. That ticks me off. LET THEM GO LIVE THERE SO AT LEAST THEY'LL KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE FOR THE VICTIMS.

After Ted Bundy's execution, a bunch of police officers where I live had a Bundy Barbecue, to celebrate. We're nowhere near where his crimes were, or where he was executed. They just wanted to celebrate something they saw as an improvement to the world--that man's exit from it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. They should be given extra consideration, because THEY are the ones who have to go get people like Bundy, and keep such a person away from US.

I've seen prosecutors who had a little electric chair in their office. Isn't that their own business? They really ARE asking juries to give the death penalty to people sometimes. So why SHOULDN'T they believe in the death penalty? Why are they not allowed to have opinions?

I also knew of a prosecutor who used to present a defendant in a serious felony case with a tube of K-Y, if there was a conviction. That's unprofessional, too. (Of course it wasn't done in front of a jury.) But if you could read the reports such a prosecutor reads on a daily basis-- unbelievable atrocities!

I've read a few New Orleans police reports in the past. Mother's boyfriend kicks 5-yr-old "Scooter" in the stomach, while wearing sharp-toed cowboy boots. Scooter slowly bleeds to death (internally) that night. "He seemed especially tired, so I put him to bed."

The DeBouie brothers, two black males, are angry at a woman one of them had dated. They wait till she's out, then they break into her project apartment and slit the throat of her 9-yr-old son, after trapping him in the bathroom. The 5-yr-old girl is found face-down on the bed, hand reaching towards the phone. She has been killed also. Only ONE of them got the death penalty!! Would it have shocked anyone's conscience if that prosecutor had gone up to one of those brothers, and handed him a tube of K-Y (long after the jury was gone) as he was carted off to prison?

I mean, for those who really have to study the gruesome details, how can they NOT want the guy to get the death penalty? And what the defendant "suffers" in such a case is NOTHING to what some victim suffered.

It's legitimate for a defendant to complain of biased behavior like the tie, on the part of the prosecutor, while they were in court. But out of court, I think it's a free speech issue. Last time I checked, prosecutors and police were allowed to have freedom of speech, like the rest of us. But who knows, maybe Amnesty International will get that changed.