The issue isn't whether there was negligence for civil liability. The issue was whether there was negligence that was criminal and that someone should perhaps lose their liberty over. The jury could not agree unanimously that there was such a level of negligence. We should neither rejoice nor despair in such a disposition. But, we should rejoice in a justice system that, at least this one time, stood between the preservation or loss of liberty for a single individual.
The Isthmus article primarily addressed the question of whether these people should be charged with crimes at all. Sorum had long been charged when that article came out. The Isthmus stood stoically silent on whether there should be a rush to judgment to convict anyone that is charged. Of course, there shouldn't be. And, that's what happened here.
I urge this form to focus on education and prevention of needless injuries and deaths, not retribution, and not on hand-wringing over one thing in this county that actually works pretty well for individuals, the jury system. This is the same jury system that the insurance companies fear and seek to tamper with when there is a bicyclist injury or death. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
On 7/1/06, Paul T. O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Robert F. Nagel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I hate to be a skunk at the party, but it is never "bad news" when an
> individual exercise his constitutional rights and he is not convicted of
> serious crime because a jury of his peers is not unanimously convinced
> beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. It would be far worse news if our
> system of justice and rights failed us and someone was wrongfully
> convicted. There is no allegation that the jury "wrongfully" failed to
> agree on Sorum's guilt. The evidence was presented to them and they made
> their decision.
But they didn't make a decision. And if their deliberation was at all based on
Eisenberg's statements, it's cause for caution. Both in June's Isthmus article and in the
articles in the dailies following the hung jury, Eisenberg repeatedly makes a blatantly
false statement, one on which the gravity of this case hinges. He continues to say (in
one form or another) "It was just an accident." We all know that it's not. "Accident"
hasn't been used by most involved agencies (with the notable, yet puzzling exception of
the Madison Police Dept) for years, perhaps decades. And for the very opposite reason
Eisenberg implies.
If that was the thrust of Eisenberg's defense, and the jury bought it, I suppose you
could say it was the prosecution's fault for failing to make it clear that they're _not_
called "accidents", that there is no such thing, but it still means justice is not
served.
---------------------
Paul T. O'Leary
Desktop Insurgent
Madison WI USA
--
Robert F. Nagel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.nagel-law.com
634 W. Main St., #201
Madison, WI 53703
608-255-1501
608-255-1504 fax
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
