Just Because A Guy Is Rich Doesnt Mean He Has Class

by Michelle Feuer

Rihanna’s battered face flashed me back to a case I worked on for CBS 48 Hours Mystery.

Twenty-eight-year-old Mary Heather Spencer, simply known as Heather, had that mysterious quality that made all men fall for her, plus she was gorgeous, smart, and kind. The girl voted “Most Beautiful” by her classmates could have gotten any guy she wanted, but she chose horribly wrong. For a year-and a half, Heather dated George Bell III (both pictured left), the third generation of the prominent Jackson, Mississippi family known for their carpet and rug business.

George was thought of as charming and intelligent by many who knew him, but things started going wrong in his life. His business was failing and his frustration led him to cocaine and steroids. In June 2007, he beat Heather so badly that she needed 57 stitches in her head. She refused to press charges against him. “She wanted to see the best in him, because that's the kind of person she is. She sees the best in everyone," said her mother. "She thought with her help, she could make him a better person." He went unpunished, but family members supposedly paid for him to go to rehab. The number of police reports was lengthy.

Just three months later, Heather was murdered by George Bell III. I watched in court as he admitted to kidnapping, sexually assaulting, then beating and strangling his girlfriend to death. He was sentenced to life without parole on the murder charge, and 30 years for the kidnapping. He cried as he read his apology statement to Heather’s mother, Linda Francomb, and Heather’s brother, Xan.

Linda Francomb, for a long time, questioned the involvement of Robbie Bell, George's own mother. In October 2007, Hinds County District Attorney Faye Peterson indicted Robbie Bell as an accessory after the fact, but new DA Robert S. Smith and the attorney general’s office dropped the charges in March 2008 for lack of evidence “after an exhaustive investigation and finally, discussion with the victim’s family,” according to the attorney general’s office.
On June 2, 2008 Linda Francomb filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Robbie and George Bell III.

“During the late evening hours of September 10, 2007, and/or early morning hours of September 11, 2007, while Defendant Robbie Bell, George Bell, III, and Mary Heather Spencer were present, Defendant George Bell, III became enraged, and did violence to the person of Mary Heather Spencer,” the Francomb suit states. “Such violence inflicted severe, but survivable injuries upon the person of Mary Heather Spencer … (who) died as a result of the failure to receive treatment sustained as a result.”Spencer’s family has stated repeatedly that she did not immediately die after the attack, citing a coroner’s report that allegedly states she died six or seven hours after the attack. “Had aid or assistance been furnished to Mary Heather Spencer, Mary Heather Spencer would not have died,” the suit continues. The Bell response, however, states that Francomb has no evidence supporting the allegations that Robbie Bell was in the house when the crime occurred, or that Spencer was alive when Robbie Bell entered her home that evening. The response demands that any evidence to the contrary be produced, or Francomb’s suit should be dismissed. Because Spencer was already dead when Robbie Bell came home, the response says, Robbie Bell is not liable for Spencer’s death.

Today, Heather’s mom is trying to save other women from the same outcome. Please check out Linda Francomb’s new foundation: Heather's TREE (Training, Resources, Education and Empowerment) to combat domestic violence. "If I could help another young woman out of a relationship, make the right choices, give them opportunity to find way out…I want to help them anyway we can.”

Run, Rihanna, run.

Tweet

Why Defense Attorneys Tell Clients to Shut Up

by Pat Brown

We see it over and over, again and again, especially in this 24-hour-a-day media world we live in: suspects giving interview after interview on nationally televised news shows—CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, and, if they get the opportunity, The Today Show and CBS's Early Show as well. They are like moths drawn to camera lights. They speak of their innocence, they give details of the crime, and, if they are Drew Peterson, talk about their dating life and send out a few winks to the ladies. All this public attention gets the suspect two possible results: a bad image and/or a prison sentence.

First off, if the person is a psychopath, he or she will not understand that their behavior on-camera is not coming across all that well to the public and a future jury. Scott Peterson? He was cold as ice with a smirk you just wanted to wipe off his face. Casey Anthony? Each time she opens her mouth, she just digs herself a deeper hole. With each interview, they increase the public's negative opinion of them.

The other risk these new television stars run is slipping up in their interviews; a bit of truth may escape or their retelling of the story may not match a previous version, sending up red flags to the investigators. Everything that is said on television can be used against them in the courtroom, so each word spoken is like playing Russian roulette with one's freedom.

A good example of a client who should have listened to his attorney's admonition to shut up would be Dino Pantazes. On March 30, 2000, the idyllic life of Clara and Dean Pantazes came to an abrupt end with the discovery of Clara shot to death in their suburban Maryland garage. Their successful life and partnership—a long happy marriage and the booming family business—came to a devastating finale.

Worse yet, Dean Pantazes, known as "Dino" to his friends and family, was arrested a month later and charged with ordering the execution of his wife. Relatives on both sides of the family stood staunchly behind Dino, swearing up and down that Dino would never have committed such a crime. They believed the police had rushed to justice and unfairly condemned a man who dearly loved his wife.

However, Dino was not your ordinary man. He was a bail bondsman, a man who made his living from dealing with some the worst criminals the Washington D.C.-area had to offer. And, being a bondsman, violence and sordid behavior can become normal features of life, criminal behavior can become ordinary.

Did Dino succumb to this world and find his wife a liability? Did he, as police believed, want out of the marriage to enjoy an alternative lifestyle, taking up with transgendered prostitutes like Mimi Kim Young (pictured left) who would later testify that Dino asked her to kill his wife? Was Clara on to some bad behavior by Dino and wanted a divorce? Or was he the loving husband and family man his supporters believed him to be? The story was heartbreaking.

A former Prince George's County bail bondsman convicted of hiring a prostitute to kill his wife was sentenced yesterday to life in prison without parole, despite his pleas that he was an "innocent lamb" tortured by police and framed by headline-seeking prosecutors.

"I am a victim, not only by the loss of my wife, but because of the judicial proceedings," Dean J. "Dino" Pantazes, 46, told Prince George's Circuit Judge James J. Lombardi.

Weeping in the courtroom, Pantazes said that police suspected him of the killing immediately after they arrived at his Upper Marlboro home on March 30, 2000.

I had met Dino and Clara once when I was working as a private detective. When this story broke, I couldn't really remember them clearly nor did I have any opinion as to Dino’s character. I do remember being stunned that it was the Pantazes that were in the news because they were pretty much fixtures next to the courthouse in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and the Pantazes name was synonymous for decades with bail bonds in Prince George’s County. So, while I couldn't attest to what kind of guy Dino was, I found it hard to believe, from a distance, that this man would hire a hit on his wife and business partner.

Then I read a newspaper story in the Washington Post that changed my mind. Dino had given an interview to the press and as soon as I read his words, I could see good reason for him to be a suspect in his wife’s murder. He had made two fascinating statements that struck me as very concerning. The first was a comment on the killing:

Dino stated: “I had no reason to want her dead. No insurance policy out on her. Greeks don’t get divorced. That’s the ultimate shame, and we wouldn’t have done that. She was my best friend.”

Is there a sentence here that does not belong? What does getting divorced have to do with killing Clara? Dino was admitting that he WOULD have a reason to kill his wife in spite of the fact he said he didn’t have one. Dino is informing us that he could not divorce his wife because that would be the worst humiliation imaginable. One would think murder would be the ultimate shame . . . but, according to Dino, asking for a divorce would be worse.

Dino went on to make the second fascinating statement: “Now I know what O.J. felt like when he was accused of killing his wife," Dino said. "He didn’t do it either and was hunted down for it.”

Huh? Was he the last person in America to believe in O.J.’s innocence? This is a man who had worked on the fringes of law enforcement for years. He knew criminals and he knew evidence. He undoubtedly was aware there was a mountain of evidence against O.J. Simpson. So, why this statement? I believe Dino was already preparing for his defense. He was pandering to his future jury, which in Prince George’s County, Maryland, was bound to be heavily African-American. This bereaved and innocent man was already calculating his trial strategy.

Dino Pantazes should have avoided anyone with a camera or a pen and paper.

Now many of us are watching the saga of little missing Haleigh Cummings of Satsuma, Florida. Her father, Ronald Cummings, and her caretaker, Daddy's 17-year-old girlfriend, Misty Croslin, have been doing interview after interview, show after show.

Armchair detectives on the blogs have been analyzing these two every time they tell their story. While neither Ronald nor Misty has been labeled a suspect in the disappearance of Haleigh, I bet there are defense lawyers across the nation shouting at their television sets, "Just shut up already! They might be totally innocent of any wrongdoing, but, if they are not, they should take the advice of these attorneys and just say, "No comment."

Dino got nailed and is serving life in prison. The conviction was based mostly on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. But, in the end, it was Dino's big mouth that got him caught and put away.

Tweet

Legal & Life Lessons from a Dallas Cowboy

Hunt for Justice by Cynthia Hunt

How could he not be bitter?

Marcus Dixon’s case proves our justice system can fail miserably.

Still, he’s not bitter.

How would you feel if our justice system stole almost two years of your life and a dream you had defied odds to make come true?

You may remember Marcus’s story. It sparked national outrage and a change in Georgia laws.

His Father Abandoned Him & His Mother Went To Prison but the Little Boy Still Excelled

Marcus Dixon (pictured above) was always special despite how unfair his life seemed to be. His spirit and athletic talent made him stand out even in little league. After his father vanished and his mother went to prison, his grandmother gave her blessings when a white family asked to adopt 9-year-old Marcus, who is black.

Kenneth and Peri Jones, a school maintenance manager and teacher, lost relationships with two immediate family members but never regretted their decision to adopt a black child in the mostly white community of Rome, Georgia. They treated him the same as their son by birth. (Pictured Below Peri & Ken Jones Appear on CBS to Discuss Marcus's Case)

Marcus was a superstar in the classroom and on the field. As a high school senior, he had a 3.96 grade-point average and a full football scholarship to Vanderbilt University. The Joneses never dreamed they would soon be spending their life savings defending their star son.

The Racially Charged Case Begins

When Marcus was 18, he had sex with a white girl who was just shy of her 16th birthday. She later claimed he raped her. He said the sex was consensual and the girl had told him her father was a racist and would never approve. Many felt the prosecution that followed was harsh and racially motivated. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the following if the boy had been white and the girl black.

For the most part, the jury believed Marcus and rejected the long list of charges the prosecutor had thrown at the teen—rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault. However in this “she said—he said” case, the jury convicted Marcus of the odd combination of statutory rape, a misdemeanor, and the more serious charge of aggravated child molestation because it was illegal for him as an 18-year-old to have sex with a girl who was just shy of 16.

The jurors were shocked and outraged when the judge, who was bound by Georgia’s mandatory sentencing laws, sent Marcus to prison for 10 years with no possibility of parole. The jurors did not realize what they had done until it was too late, and Marcus was headed to prison for the next decade. Five of the jurors said they never would have voted for what they thought were lesser convictions if they had known the result of their decision.

Outrage Spread Across the Nation Over How Legal System Treated Marcus

Marcus’s story sparked a national outcry and charges of Old South injustice. A white attorney saw the teen’s story and worked on Marcus’s appeal pro bono. After Marcus served 15 months in prison, the Georgia Supreme Court threw out Marcus's conviction and sentence for the molestation charges agreeing with his attorneys that it was cruel and unusual punishment. It's interesting to note that in this racially charged controversy, it was a white corporate Georgia attorney who donated $400,000 worth of legal work to free Marcus. Lawmakers themselves said they never realized that the law they had passed to strengthen sentencing guidelines for child molesters could be applied to consensual sex between teenagers. (Above, Marcus is freed)

Marcus Shows the Dallas Cowboys the Stuff of a Real Champion

Marcus could not regain everything he had lost, especially the full scholarship to Vanderbilt University. Marcus got a football scholarship to Hampton University in Virginia. Now five years after this legal nightmare started, Marcus is getting a second chance at his dream. He’s on the practice team for the Dallas Cowboys with hopes of making the team.

Pam Oliver, FOX’s awesome and respected NFL Correspondent, updated the story of Marcus Oliver last Sunday. In her interview, I was struck when he told her he is NOT bitter. (Watch video of Pam’s story on Marcus.)

NOT Bitter?

Marcus's Story Presents a Question for Us All

During this miraculous time of the year when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, there is so much to learn from this 24-year-old kid who lost so much because of a failure in our legal system.

Holiday Flying & A Cold-Hearted, Continental Gate Agent Made Me Daydream about Breaking Laws

I know people who are bitter about all events great and small in their lives. As I was flying home to Alabama to see my family yesterday, a bitter Continental gate agent went on the plane just before takeoff to yank me off the flight because she could not find my ticket for my 5-pound Chihuahua who was sitting in a carrier underneath my seat. I begged her to let me work it out with Continental in Nashville, but nope. She took me off the plane and let the plane leave with my seat empty.

I’m bitter about that.

At first, I had visions of this obviously miserable woman going hunting with Dick Cheney. That made me ashamed. Then I had visions of her going clubbing with Plaxico Burress. That made me laugh. The woman who had been incredibly rude all morning to even elderly passengers is obviously a bitter person. After spending almost six hours waiting for the next flight . . . hours I was supposed to be spending with my terminally ill younger sister . . . I became more embittered.

Still my thoughts go back to Marcus Dixon—a young man with so much grace that he can forgive and forget how unfair life has often been to him and persevere. My six hours of airport waiting was nothing compared to his 15 months in prison. Could you feel the same way if our legal system robbed you of an experience you richly earned and stole two years from your life? Our legal system is made by humans and therefore will have more cases like this.

I’ve decided the world is made up of the bitter and the not bitter. The bitter are petty about everything, worrying that someone, somewhere is getting a better deal. These people are so overwhelmed with insecurity and jealousy, they spend valuable energy trying to bring others down . . . even others who are on the same team as they.

Marcus & My Sister Share a Secret

The “not bitter” are the champions in life. The people of all ages and races who refuse to let life’s circumstances ever damage their spirit. The ones who want good things for all their peers because they understand when one wins, we all win.

My sister Angelia (left) isn’t bitter. After a massive heart attack at age 23, she was told she had inoperable brain aneurysms and a heart aneurysm and that she would probably live only a few more months. I am incredibly blessed to tell you nine beautiful years later she is still alive and doctors call her a little miracle, a word MD's don't use lightly.

Angelia takes 12 medications a day. She cannot lift more than five pounds or exercise. She cannot dream of becoming a mother. There is no treatment for her DNA flaw that causes her collagen to be so weak and therefore her blood vessels to be so fragile. Doctors don't know how long she can defy the odds, but I know she is blessing all in her path with her happy spirit . . . a spirit of faith and thankfulness for each day she wakes up alive . . . a spirit with no bitterness.

In this season of Christ, I hope I can be more like my sister and Marcus. I hope I can rise above anything that comes in my path and find the grace to be thankful. Since this is a crime blog, I guess I am somewhat helped by the fact many people aren’t like Marcus. . . . We wouldn’t have so many murders and crimes to fill our blog with lively writing and debate.

Marcus told a Dallas Morning News reporter "I stayed in the Word. I stayed prayed up. My faith can't be broken. It's so strong, nothing can break it. It's always hard to have faith because you are tested every day."

Thank you Marcus for being wise at only 24 . . . and for reminding me the best revenge is to beat bitterness. The Dallas Cowboys will be lucky to have you on their team to remind some of the spoiled and the petty multi-millionaire star athletes what a true champion is like.

Tweet

The Murder of Lauren Lofquist

by Susan Murphy-Milano

It was Sunday morning, March 26, 2006. For Neil and Lisa Lofquist and their children, 8-year-old Lauren and 6-year-old Lars, it was their usual weekend routine. The family enjoyed Sunday breakfast together before heading off to church. Neil taught Sunday School and Lisa was active in church activities. The couple had been married for sixteen years and raised their family in an upscale suburb of Illinois.

The Lofquists had deep roots in the Clarendon Hills community. They were educated—Lisa was an occupational therapist and Neil had his MBA and was in business for himself. Lauren was a great student, active in Girl Scouts and in swimming. Lars loved baseball, digging in the dirt for worms, and pulling his sister's hair. As far as anyone knew, the family was close and loving.

That evening, around 8 p.m., Neil Lofquist had offered to put the kids to bed while his wife remained downstairs. Lisa was still in the family room watching television when Neil returned from putting the kids down for the night. He had a deep, unexplained wound to this hand.

Neil Lofquist, his son, and Lisa headed to the hospital. Using their cell phone, they called next door and asked a neighbor to check on Lauren who was sleep while Neil sought medical attention for his hand. Oddly, they left Lauren upstairs, asleep.

When the neighbor went upstairs to check on 8-year-old Lauren, the little girl was on her knees on the cold bathroom tile floor, her lifeless head was slumped down into the toilet bowl.

Around 10 p.m. police responded to a 911 call in the 100 block of Chicago Avenue.

The following morning, media were camped out in front of the Loftquist home and reporters canvassed the coffee shops and surrounding area for any tidbits on the family and reaction to Lauren's murder.

The front page news: "Neil Loftquist sexually abused, stabbed, strangled and drowned his daughter inside the family home, claiming he believed Lauren was the devil."

Neil Lofquist was charged with murder. The Chicago Tribune reported he strangled and stabbed his own daughter. He took her into the bathroom and, according to reports, drowned her in the toilet bowl.

That weekend the murder of Loren Lofquist did not make national news. Had it been a slower news day, more than likely the story would have received the attention it deserved.

Over the next several days, people pointed fingers as they often do in these cases. The town Web site was filled with residents demanding answers as to why a mother would leave her child alone to take her husband to the hospital in the first place. Why didn't Lisa go upstairs and check on Lauren's well being? Why did Lisa take the one child and not the other? Why didn't Lisa know their daughter was being sexually assaulted? Why didn't she help her daughter?

Answers do not come easily in tragedies where a parent has been arrested or is a suspect in the murder of their child. And only skilled and trained professionals can evaluate and determine what happened in each case. And sometimes their conclusions are wrong. I suspect we will never know "why" Neil Lofquist murdered his daughter.

Last month, Lofquist appeared before a judge in DuPage County, along with his three public defenders, to argue whether or not psychological interviews can be taped. It will be some time before a trial date is set in the case. And it is likely you will not see this case covered on FOX News or CNN.

Lauren's death was, in my opinion, a great loss to the world. She was one of those kids whose eyes sparkled like stars when she spoke. Loren talked of being a nurse when she grew up.

Lauren could have been your neighbor or your child's school mate or someone you bought Girls Scout cookies from at church. Lauren is a reminder to each of us that life is precious.

In memory of Lauren's death, let us all remember to make time and give our kids extra hugs and kisses. Let them know how important they are each and every day.

Tweet

Unreasonable Doubt?

by Vanessa Leggett

What's a juror supposed to do when common sense says a defendant is guilty, but the law says the prosecution has not proved its case? Before a defendant is brought to trial, the case against him is usually solid enough to secure a conviction. By the time a verdict is read, both sides are primed to hear one word: GUILTY. The evidence should be developed and presented in such a way that even the rare defendant who is actually innocent is mentally prepared to hear that word. That’s why all but the jurors are stunned whenever the verdict read is “Not Guilty.”

I've seen it happen in a Texas courtroom. I'll never forget the experience. My legs went noodly on me. So did the defendant’s, apparently; his attorneys seemed to hold him up. You don't have to be a witness or on trial for your life to appreciate the dramatic effect of those two little words. If you're at least 20, you remember your reaction to the televised verdict in "The Trial of the Century," the O. J. Simpson case. Whether you believed he was guilty or not, your jaw likely dropped. You can see in this video clip an expression of initial disbelief from Simpson himself, who took a moment to absorb the words he had just heard.

I was reminded of this feeling last night. While working on a blog I intended to post on suspected wife killer Drew Peterson, I heard a broadcast announcement that made me change my blog topic:

"We have breaking news to report to you," a talk-radio host announced. "Believe it or not, a jury in St. Paul, Minnesota found Aaron Foster NOT GUILTY for the murder of Barbara Winn. Twenty-seven years after the family fought for justice . . . a murderer, in their mind, Aaron Foster, walked free. . . . A shocking verdict for court watchers."
To my surprise, it was a shocking verdict to me, though I had only a passing knowledge of the case—woman says Get out of my life to abusive partner, who, rather than comply, takes her life. The setup was as familiar as the Simpson and Peterson cases. As was that queasy feeling in my gut that comes when I sense a miscarriage of justice.
Listening to the broadcast announcement of a not-guilty verdict from the other side of the country, I could only imagine the reaction of the victim's family, her children, and others present in the courtroom. No one knows the shock of hearing "Not Guilty" better than surviving family members. They'll tell you the effect is at once as dizzying and as sobering as a slap across the face.

Everyone who witnesses such a verdict is affected on some level. In the Minnesota courtroom, the words "not guilty" created chaos. The FOX affiliate in St. Paul reported that "the verdict left many people in the courtroom upset, swearing and crying." Family members shouted, "Oh my God. Oh my God." Another news source said that several jurors sobbed.

A Single Shot

The first fact I heard—that 39-year-old Barbara Winn had been shot in the chest—had my mind leaning in the direction that the gunshot wound was not self-inflicted. Might seem like jumping the gun, if you'll pardon the pun, but I will explain.

When I taught a course in Homicide Investigation for the Criminal Justice Center at the University of Houston-Downtown, we covered the basics of distinguishing a homicide from a suicide. Cadets are given various handouts (illustrated, incidentally, by the same talented man who designed Women in Crime Ink's Justitia logo—Rex White, Director of the CJC's Police Academy). As I recall, one sketch depicted a woman shot twice in the chest. The caption read: Homicide or Suicide?

Well, the number of shots alone pretty much answers the question. Most people who shoot themselves wouldn’t have the strength to discharge a firearm more than once, even if the first shot was a miss. Still, if the drawing had shown only one gunshot wound, but in the chest, like Barbara Winn's fatal injury, I would still lean toward homicide. Women, vain creatures that we are, rarely mar our faces or breasts.

Too Many Bruises

Barbara's body had been marred before she was shot. She had numerous bruises, some fresh, which prosecutors suggested had been inflicted during the struggle that led to the shooting. Aaron Foster (pictured to right of Barbara) had a pattern of domestic violence with women. His relationship with Barbara had grown increasingly violent, according to the "Justice for Barbara" Web site. Finally, she asked him to move out, told him the relationship was over.

"I'm not your girlfriend anymore,” Barbara wrote to him in a letter. “I will not be abused. I am tired of the bruises. I am somebody and don't have to be treated like a nobody. Strike three you're out."

After Barbara broke up with Aaron, she joined friends and family for a night out. She returned home just after midnight on May 8, 1981. Aaron had not moved out. He was waiting for her.

Later, two of her three children were awakened by a "loud fight." Both heard the gunshot. One son, then 12, testified that he heard his mother utter her last words: "Oh Bubbie, that hurt. . . ." (Aaron Foster's nickname was "Bubbie.") Reading that quote broke my heart. It's so sad, so real, you can almost hear her voice weakened by disbelief.

The boys said they ran to their mother's room just as Bubbie was rushing out. The children found Mama propped in a corner with a hole in her chest. The boys watched their mother die, powerless to keep her alive.

Though Barbara's sons told authorities they saw Aaron Foster running from their mother's room, Aaron's story to police was that at the time of the shooting, he had been downstairs packing his belongings into his car. He admitted he "heard a gunshot." But he said that he'd arrived in the bedroom to find her near death.

According to Aaron's statement to police, Barbara said, "I shot myself. . . . Get rid of the gun." That does not sound real at all. Why would she say, "I shot myself"? . . . Just in case Aaron was wondering who had used his gun to shoot his ex-girlfriend? (The same woman who'd put her feelings about him in writing: "Strike three you're out.") The simplest explanation for what he described as her dying declaration—"I shot myself"—was that he was attempting to clear himself by claiming her death was a suicide.
And he didn't stop there. Looks like he had to create a reason for fleeing with the weapon, so he told police that as Barbara bled to death she supposedly said, "Get rid of the gun."
So that's all it was, Aaron Foster would have us believe—just an unlucky guy trying to fulfill an ex's last request. . . . Come on. A woman is dying, so instead of calling for help, he runs to hide the gun? And what possible reason would Barbara have to tell him to dispose of the weapon? Think about it: Why would a woman who had fatally injured herself be concerned with police finding the weapon she'd used? There is no law against a person taking his or her own life. It's a practical matter. A dead person cannot be prosecuted.

The manner of Barbara’s death was listed as “undetermined,” a finding that did not change for more than a quarter century. Time was not on the side of the State. Over the years, ballistics evidence was misplaced. Surviving family members, understandably, lost hope.

Not Enough Evidence

Law enforcement, as Kelly Siegler noted in yesterday’s post, is routinely frustrated by prosecutors who won’t file charges against suspects who seem guilty to the public. The Barbara Winn case is an instructive example. In a televised press conference last year, the sheriff accused the county prosecutor of “dragging his feet.” Standing with Barbara’s family, he said, “We are befuddled as to why they haven't pressed [charges]. It's either lack of competency, lack of caring, lack of making it a priority . . ."

It had seemed that way until 2006, when a contentious sheriff's election caused prosecutors to lower the bar, indicting Aaron Foster for third-degree murder. According to Minnesota statutes, if Foster, "without intent to effect the death of any person, [did] cause[] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, [he] is guilty of murder in the third degree."

By charging Foster with third-degree murder, prosecutors had hoped to show that even if Aaron did not mean to murder her, Barbara's death had been brought about during the course of an assault that culminated in a gunshot, killing her. That the manner of her death remained undetermined would not matter with third-degree murder, which can be unintentional or accidental.

The elements of the crime seem to have been satisfied. Barbara had fresh bruises and the couple's scuffle in the bedroom had been heard by the boys (pictured above with sister and mother Barbara). Those facts alone constitute evidence of assault, and exhibiting a deadly weapon (his gun) qualifies as "an act eminently dangerous to others," namely Barbara. An armed man assaulting a defenseless woman seems evidence enough of a "depraved mind." And the essential element, that she died, was indisputable. That's all the jury should need: evidence of a fight and a dead body.

Other circumstantial evidence that was not admitted would have been compelling. She was leaving him, had ordered him out. But the defense was able to suppress her Dear John letter and other evidence taken without a proper search warrant. Nor did the jury hear testimony of Aaron's pattern of violence with other women.

Should prosecutors have waited for more evidence before indicting? Apparently, the county attorney decided it was now or never. Twenty-seven years is a long time, and in all likelihood, prosecutors did not expect evidence would get any better.

Yes, it's true that there is no statute of limitation on murder. But there is a Constitutional limitation on how many times any state can try someone for the same crime. The State of Minnesota had one shot. The government missed. Maybe prosecutors had rolled the dice, taking the "he might beat the rap" tack—prepared to be pacified by taking Foster on the hellacious ride of a murder trial.

This jury's verdict showed that the county prosecutor had not been "dragging his feet," as the sheriff charged. Nor was the State's reluctance to go to trial a sign of incompetence, indifference, or failure to make this case a priority. If prosecutors lacked anything, it was admissible evidence sufficient to convict.

With the trial behind, two things appear clear: The defendant's rights were protected, but justice seems to have been undermined. I believe in safeguarding our civil rights. Yet I also believe in securing justice for victims. One should not have to come at the expense of the other.

Fewer Solutions

So what is a juror supposed to do when guilt is obvious but the evidence is insufficient to convict? Follow the law, as each man and woman on a jury panel must—however onerous and uncomfortable that can sometimes be . . . their internal conflict evident when jurors, as in the Foster case, must read their verdict and weep.

And what are victims supposed to do when they feel justice has not been served? Make their voices heard. Use the power of the pen (or the Internet) to send a message to those who can make a difference. Victims can also write to the jury, as did the family of Barbara Winn, in a letter that states in the opening paragraph, "We are not angry with you, the jurors. . . ."

Members of the jury actually posted written responses. Most agreed with this juror's statement: "[W]e couldn't prove guilt by the information we had at the time." Another juror's comment captured the essence of the conflict: "If you had looked over at the jury box as the verdict was read you would have seen many of us in tears because we so badly wanted to put it to rest. I am sorry for the way it ended but we had to follow the law and not our hearts."

Just Enough Courage

It's sad that after high-profile not-guilty verdicts, the public accuses juries of lacking common sense. I say such juries possess an abundance of courage, sending a message to prosecutors: Don't ask us to find someone guilty unless you plan to put on enough evidence to convict. In more acquittals than not, a jury's doubt was not unreasonable. What might have been unreasonable was the prosecution's decision to put the defendant on trial without having a strong case or a compelling argument.

When a case is weak or a prosecution is made in bad faith, the Constitution is there to shield the individual whose life and/or liberty is at stake. It might not seem right or fair that criminals are sometimes insulated from accountability by laws that occasionally leave victims hanging.

The truth is, the Bill of Rights isn't reserved for the accused. Law-abiding folks can take advantage of other entitlements. Barbara Winn's family members have exercised their First Amendment right to free speech. A scrolling marquee on Justice for Barbara reads: "AARON FOSTER IS A MURDERER." Can they say that? I think so. A defense to accusations can be found in more civil statutes than in criminal courtrooms: Truth.

Tweet