Prof. Randolph McLaughlin has published an op-ed in the Journal News about two high-profile criminal cases this summer. He contrasts the murder case of Casey Anthony–in which, despite round-the-clock media coverage, the jury “dispassionately rendered a verdict based on the law and the Constitution, not on their emotions or feelings about Anthony’s behavior”– with the sexual assault case against former IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, which appears to be crumbling as questions have arisen about the accuser’s credibility.
In the Strauss-Kahn case, McLaughlin writes, “There is now talk that the prosecution will offer him a deal or outright dismissal of the charges. Where is the outrage? If the forensic and other evidence supported the prosecution of Strauss-Kahn, then should we not allow a jury to decide his fate — as we did in Casey Anthony’s case?”
He concludes: “These two cases stand in stark contrast. While in the case of Anthony the legal system worked as it was intended: A jury of her peers heard the evidence and decided the case based on the law and the constitution. In the case of Strauss-Kahn, it appears that the justice system will be high-jacked because a prosecutor is afraid to put his proof to the test of the jury and will allow an alleged victim’s complaint to go unanswered.”
Read the whole piece here.