CrimLaw

This column contains an excellent description of what is disturbing about Brady decisions being solely in the hands of the prosecution. It discusses whether evidence of prejudice should be allowed in the Jackson and Kobe trials.

In my mind, the evidence of prejudice is definitely in during the Jackson trial. That case looks like a witch hunt proceeding from pre-existing prejudices in the prosecutor's office. What little I know of the facts - as portrayed by the media - makes it seem as though this is an extremely tenuous case, with bad witnesses, that was probably brought in order to see if anything more substantial would fall into the prosecutor's lap if he shook the tree. You have to seriously wonder if this case would have been brought forward by other prosecutors' offices on evidence this weak.

In the Kobe case I think there's nothing more to the T-shirt than plain tackiness. It was never intended to air publicly and its exposure has hurt the prosecution. It doesn't show any predisposition prior to the police investigation or the decision of the prosecutor's office to pursue the case. Still, it's a nightmare for the prosecutor. The Defense is almost assuredly going to try and use it to show racial prejudice as motivation for the prosecution; it's going be a tough call for the judge. And the fact that the two T's on the website which have "hangmen" on them both relate to black men will weigh in the Defense's favor.

I guess what I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the Jackson case appears to have clear prejudice which should be introduced while the Kobe case appears to be stupidity borne out of cockiness. Therefore, the Jackson prejudice should be explored indepth during the trial while the Kobe "prejudice" examination should be held in check. A judge should probably allow it in but keep tight control so that it doesn't have an effect out of proportion to what it is.