Is 'Adequate and Competent' Enough?

by Diane Fanning 

Down in Orlando, the Casey Anthony pre-trial hearings are stirring up serious legal questions concerning an indigent defendant’s right to qualified defense counsel. Unfortunately, up until now, this issue has been obscured by the circus-like atmosphere that has surrounded this case since Cindy Anthony called 9-1-1.

Many people are complaining that someone like Casey Anthony does not deserve for a single penny of taxpayer money to be spent paying her high priced attorneys. Part of the reason for this outcry is the long amount of time that has transpired since Caylee Anthony disappeared. When jury selection begins, it will be nearly 35 months since Caylee was last seen alive.

The other part of the objection is the apparent guilt of Casey Anthony. I’ll admit that I found the forensic data and the interviews with Casey to be compelling evidence of her involvement in the death of her daughter. Nonetheless, our judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence. Everyone is entitled to have the determination of guilt be made in a court of law. To strip people like Casey of that right is to imperil all of our civil liberties.

The third aspect of the response is an emotional one. On one side of the equation, we have a self-centered, selfish, spoiled young woman. On the other side, an adorable, innocent child, not quite three years old. Your heart must side with Caylee. To make matters worse, the accused murderer has been proven to be a liar, even by her own admission. She has been proven to be a thief by stealing from her own grandmother. She has been proven to care little for her own daughter, as shown by the 30 fun-filled days she spent before being forced to admit that Caylee was missing. It's hard not to despise Casey and nearly impossible to give her the benefit of the doubt. Yet, when it comes to the legal presumption of innocence, it is her right. And, it is in our best interests to ensure that right is not violated.

The issue is much larger and more important than Casey Anthony. It goes to the basic premise of equality under the law. Eighty per cent of the experts in the field of capital case law agree than there is bias in the administration of the death penalty based on social class. In other words, the more money you have to spend on your defense team, the less likely you are to receive the death penalty. That very concept thwarts our principle of equality under the law.

Take the case of Robert Durst. He decapitated his neighbor and claimed self-defense. He had millions at his disposal to buy the best defense team available. In the end, he walked away from the courtroom after the jury bought into the arguments of his attorney. Do you really think the outcome would have been the same if the story had involved a poor man who had no choice but to rely on the adequate and competent counsel of a court-appointed attorney? I certainly don't.

How can we uphold our principles that ensure justice is blind and we are all equal in the eyes of the law?

Ideally, every guilty person would honestly acknowledge their responsibility when charged with a crime, leaving only the decision of how much weight to give to mitigating circumstances when assessing a sentence. But it is not, and never will be, an ideal world. Someone who is willing to take another's life is not going to balk at lying to attempt to save his skin.

Casey Anthony is certainly a case in point. To date, her defense has cost approximately $300,000. Since she was ruled to be indigent in March of this year, the defense has received nearly $40,000 in taxpayer funding, although her legal team has requested far more than that.

Last week, Jose Baez and his team asked for more money for their private investigator (300 additional hours at $40 per hour). Judge Blevin Perry granted only one-fifth of that amount. Perry would not allow any travel expense reimbursement for the new death penalty expert. When the defense asked for $7,500 for a psychological expert, he only granted $2,500. The judge made his position clear: The law requires an adequate defense, not the best defense possible. "I'm not going to write an open check."

WKMG's Tony Pipitone summed up the day in the courtroom: "The law says indigent defendants are entitled to a defense that's competent. But they are not entitled to an O.J. defense unless they can pay for it themselves."

But is that right? Should people like O.J. Simpson be entitled to a better defense than you or I merely because they can afford it? Is that what justice is all about--the size of your wallet

Maybe it's time to think about trial financial reform. The scales should be balanced. Nonetheless, it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayers to shoulder the additional burden of the best defense for the indigent. Maybe we should consider restricting the expenditures of wealthy defendants.

I don't know if that's the answer or if it is even a possibility, but equality under the law requires consideration for all solutions that might lead to the elimination of bias in the courtroom.

Diane Fanning is the author of Mommy's Little Girl: Casey Anthony and Her Daughter Caylee's Tragic Fate.  When the Casey Anthony trial begins next year, you'll find daily updates of the case on Diane Fanning's blog, Writing is a Crime.

Tweet

Terrorists on Trial

by Diane Dimond

So, the so-called 9/11 Gang of Five will go on trial in a federal court as opposed to before a military commission. The bottom line question then has to be: Are you ready for the possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed or any of his fellow collaborators might walk free on a sly defense attorney’s manipulation of our system?

Don’t think it couldn’t happen?

Millionaire Robert Durst walked free even after he admitted to killing a neighbor and cutting up his body. In my opinion O.J. Simpson got a free pass too after taking the lives of his ex-wife, Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman. I could cite other cases in which juries, again in my opinion, did not come to the right conclusion. Take it from me it happens.

As you sit reading this column there are American lawyers preparing and strategizing how to secure the freedom of Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abd Al-Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmad Al-Hawsawi, and Waleed Bin Attash. This, after Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) has repeatedly proclaimed he was the mastermind who planned the attacks onAmerica that claimed nearly 3000 lives that horrible day in September 2001. KSM gleefully brags about hating and murdering Americans. His followers, some of whom will be in court with him, do the same. This is what they live for – to kill us – and to go down in history as martyrs.

Let me be perfectly clear about why I think these trials should have been conducted in a military court: September 11, 2001 was not the beginning of some temporary crime wave. What happened at the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and over the skies of Pennsylvania wasn’t just a criminal act – it was an act of war. Don’t be fooled just because these terrorists don’t wear proper military uniforms. These men, who will go on trial in New York soon, aren’t mere criminals. They are enemy combatants and should be treated as the soldiers they are.

Being brought before a civilian court these men will be afforded all the rights and privileges they excoriate America for. The fact that ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ (read that: water boarding) was used on some of them as our agents tried to extract vital information will be used as a reason to try to toss out crucial evidence. Their long detention in secret locations and then at Guantanamo Bay will surely be highlighted as their defense attorneys try to play the “poor-them” card. And it goes without saying these defendants will try to use our open justice system as a platform to spew their warped sense of how the world should be. Even with the most diligent judge at the helm there will most likely be anti-American outbursts in the courtroom. Their free-of-charge American lawyers, will stage-manage the system toward mistrial by demanding classified information be released to “prove their case.”

America will bend over backward and spend multiple millions of dollars to demonstrate we can stage a secure and fair trial for even our most vilified enemies. We’ll hire the accused the best available lawyers and some believe this will show the rest of the world we are virtuous people. But guess what? The radical Muslim world will still call us “The Great Satan” and worse.

I have to wonder how any American defense attorney could feel comfortable taking such a case so I called my friend Mickey Sherman who wrote a book entitled, “How Can You Defend Those People?” As a defense lawyer Sherman firmly believes every human being deserves good representation in court no matter what they’ve done. But even he admitted to me he would never agree to go to court with these terror loving jihadists. He called the Gang of Five “the defendants we love to hate.” Sherman believes any lawyer that takes one of the terrorist cases will be vilified and do permanent damage to both their professional and personal life.

Defense Attorney Ron Kuby, never a man to shy away from representing controversial figures (he practiced with the late William Kuntsler), calls the whole trial process into question. “KSM has been standing before a military commission admitting he did it, saying he wants the government to kill him. The government wants to kill him. The mockery comes,” according to Kuby (photo left), “because the military commission didn’t accept the guilty plea in the first place…the trial becomes a long form of assisted suicide.”

In the end the defendants will likely be glad to admit in civilian court what they did and say they are ready to die. The question then becomes what does the court do? Does it give the terrorists what they want most in life – death? Or are they sentenced to what I see as their worst nightmare – life – in an American maximum security prison?

I say give them life.

Tweet

OJ revisted: The Prosecutors' Biggest Mistakes

by Women In Crime Ink

We decided it could be fun to take a look back at sensational cases and voice our opinions on what went right, what went wrong, or who was really responsible. Yesterday on Good Morning America O.J.'s ex-girlfriend, Christie Prody (photo below left), said he made incriminating statements during their 13 years together and that she believes he's guilty of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson (below right), and Ron Goldman.

It just seemed the perfect time to take a look back and ask the question: In his 1995 murder trial, what were the O.J. prosecutors' biggest mistakes. Here's what WCI members had to say:

Laura James: They made their biggest mistakes in jury selection.

Kathryn Casey: There were, of course, multiple issues; in addition to moving the trial out of the more affluent part of L.A., where the murders took place, they drew it out too long, bogging the jury down with minutia. They had a good case. They needed to get to the point.

Andrea Campbell: Oh, where do I begin! The first problem was that the prosecution did not anticipate what the defense was doing. The crime scene had too much traffic. They didn't make the blood evidence clear to the jury. The "gloves don't fit" scenario was painful. Was there no one there to bring up the fact that leather shrinks when soaked? The blood trail to his home did not receive an adequate presentation. The fact that Simpson was a celebrity meant there was already a Sisyphus-type, push-up-the-hill, stone-rolling ahead of the prosecution team, yet they often got side-tracked by their own personalities-like the grilling of Mark Furman (that was a travesty). There's more to discuss, but who has time?

Robin Sax: There were so many mistakes. Many were due to the prosecutors, many due to the judge, and the most due to the jury. The biggest prosecutorial mistake was not allowing Bill Hodgman to be the lead prosecutor. He was and is a genius, he has amazing presence and advocacy skills, and he would have had that jury....no matter what obstacles he had to overcome.

Susan Murphy-Milano: There were so many mistakes.

The Former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi (who prosecuted the Manson trial) wrote a book called Outrage: The Five Reasons O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. Bugliosi was very critical of prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden. He faulted them, for example, for not introducing the note Simpson wrote before trying to flee. Bugliosi contended that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also pointed out that the jury was never informed about items found in the Bronco: a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit. The prosecution during this media circus felt these items of evidence would bring up emotional issues on Simpson's part that could harm their case, despite the fact that the items likely could be used to flee.

In addition, Simpson made an incriminating statement to police about cutting his finger the night of the murders. In the book, Bugliosi took Clark and Darden to task for not allowing the jury to hear the taped statement. Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's abuse of his wife. He said it should have been made clear to the mostly African-American jury that Simpson had little impact in the black community and had done nothing to help less fortunate blacks. Bugliosi pointed out that, although the prosecutors obviously understood that Simpson's race had nothing to do with the murders, once the defense "opened the door" by trying to paint Simpson falsely as a leader in the black community, the evidence to the contrary should have been presented, to prevent the jury from allowing it to bias their verdict. Vince Bugliosi also criticized the prosecution's closing statements as inadequate.

Tweet

The Year in Review: Top Criminal Cases of 2008

by Robin Sax

It’s that time again—our chance to reflect upon the year just ending. It’s time to look at the good and the bad, the trends and the hook-ups, and the births and the deaths. From my perspective as a member of Women in Crime Ink, I’d like to examine the crime stories that represent justice, truth, and closure for the many lives that were affected by crime.

So, after perusing the papers, magazines, and the Web from the last year, I’d like to remind you of these 12 cases (one for every juror on a panel) from 2008.

1. Vati-Con

Italian “businessman” Raffaello Follieri received a 4½ year prison sentence for defrauding investors of millions of dollars. Most of us had never heard of Follieri prior to these events, and those who did know his name only knew it because he was the boyfriend of actress Anne Hathaway. But Follieri has now made a name for himself. According to prosecutors, he spent years claiming ties to the Vatican, even saying he was the Vatican Chief Financial Officer, to induce investments in his real estate company, the Follieri Group. But the money never went into his business–it went towards funding Follieri’s lavish lifestyle. When caught, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering.

2. Joseph Fritzl

One of the more bizarre cases that came to light this year was that of Josef Fritzl, a 73-year-old electrician in Austria. It was discovered that Fritzl had been imprisoning his own daughter, Elizabeth, in the windowless cellar of his family’s home for 24 years. More appalling was the fact that he had been torturing and sexually abusing his now 42-year-old daughter the entire time.

She had actually given birth to seven of his children. Fritzl brought three of the children out of the cellar, claiming that Elizabeth had joined a religious cult and then left the children on his doorstep. Fritzl’s horrific activities were only discovered after one of the three children still being held in the cellar with Elizabeth became ill and was taken to a doctor. These three children had never seen sunlight before authorities came to release them. Fritzl admitted to imprisoning and repeatedly raping his daughter, and prosecutors have also charged him with the murder of one of the seven children–an infant who became ill and died for lack of medical treatment.

3. Eve Carson

Eve Carson was the 22-year-old Student Body President at University of North Carolina. On March 5, 2008 she was found dead on the side of the road in Chapel Hill–killed by a gunshot to the head. Her SUV was found about a mile away. What seemed like a completely random crime has now been linked to the murder of Duke University graduate student Abhijit Mahato, who was also shot in the head, in his own apartment. Laurence Lovette had been charged in the murder of Mahato, and Lovette along with Demario Atwater were charged with Carson’s murder. Both Lovette and Atwater have criminal records. These killings have caused many in North Carolina to look to the state legislature to crack down on gang violence.

4. O.J. Simpson

In a flashback to 1994, we got to see O.J. Simpson at the defendant’s table yet again this year. This time, he and co-defendant Clarence Steward were convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary and conspiracy. The crime occurred in late 2007, when Simpson and his accomplices were arrested for robbing the Palace Station Hotel-Casino in Las Vegas. Although Simpson claimed he was simply trying to retrieve his sports memorabilia after it had been stolen from him, he and his gang were charged with robbery while in the Palace Station hotel. Simpson received 9 to 33 years in Nevada state prison and Steward was sentenced to 7½ to 27 years. The four other co-defendants received probation after taking plea deals in return for testifying against Simpson at trial.

5. Northern Illinois University Shooting

Early 2008 saw yet another school shooting that left several dead and many in shock. This time the shooter was armed with a shotgun and two handguns, and opened fire on a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University. The shooter, a former student of the university, turned the gun on himself at the end of his short rampage. Although there didn’t appear to be a motive, the shooter caused 22 injuries and 6 deaths. It was the fourth U.S. school shooting in one week’s time.

6. Canada Bus Murder

On a Canadian Greyhound bus traveling from Edmonton to Winnepeg, 22-year-old passenger Tim McLean was suddenly and unexpectedly stabbed by Vince Weiguang Li, the man sitting next to him. The other passengers fled from the bus as Li repeatedly stabbed McLean. Once outside the bus, they watched as Li beheaded McLean and then began cutting off parts of the corpse and eating it. Li has been charged with second-degree murder, and has been found fit to stand trial. Testimony began in November 2008.

7. Jennifer Hudson

A shocking Hollywood crime occurred with the triple murder of singer/actress Jennifer Hudson’s mother, brother, and nephew on October 24, 2008. Hudson’s mother and brother were found shot in their home, and her nephew’s body was found three days later in an SUV. After several weeks, William Balfour, the estranged husband of Hudson’s sister, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder, and home invasion. According to prosecutors, Balfour had met his estranged wife, Hudson’s sister, at her home the day of the crime. Police believe the crimes were committed in the heat of passion after Balfour found out his estranged wife was dating another man. Balfour had previously served time in jail for attempted murder, vehicular hijacking, and possession of a stolen vehicle.

8. Texas Polygamist Ranch

In April 2008, authorities raided the Yearning for Zion Ranch just outside Eldorado,Texas, which is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The 1,700-acre community became of interest after Texas Child Protective Services and other authorities received several tips that underage girls were being forced into marriage and sexual relations with older men. All the children were removed from the ranch by Protective Services until the Court of Appeals determined that there was not enough evidence of immediate danger to have taken the children. In June, the children were returned and the FLDS Church is said to have renounced underage marriage. Still, to date, twelve FLDS men have been indicted on a variety of charges, including bigamy, performing unlawful marriages, sexual assault of child, and tampering with evidence.

9. Caylee Anthony

Probably the most publicized crime story of the year is the disappearance and murder of Caylee Anthony. The two-year-old was reported missing by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony, on July 15, 2008, after Caylee’s mother, Casey, would not produce her. Cindy originally stated that she was alarmed after not seeing her grandchild in weeks, and because she had smelled the odor of a dead body coming from the trunk of Casey’s car. Unfortunately for authorities, the stories told by Cindy and Casey became more and more muddled. Casey indicated that a babysitter was with Caylee when she disappeared, but the Anthonys did not know the alleged babysitter. In addition, Caylee had been missing for a least a month prior to the grandmother’s call, but Casey never alerted authorities to her daughter’s disappearance.

During their investigation, police found hair samples and stains, as well as traces of chloroform in Casey’s trunk. Casey has been arrested four times since her daughter’s disappearance, although three of the arrests were not for Caylee’s murder. However, the fourth arrest came after Casey was indicted by a grand jury on charges of first-degree murder, child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, and four counts of lying to investigators.

There have been many leads from people who claim they saw Caylee in different places since her disappearance. But the most promising lead came on December 11, 2008, when the remains of a small child were found in the woods near the Anthonys’ home. The remains have recently been identified as those of Caylee.

10. Anand Jon

A win for the good guys came in November 2008. Too often Los Angeles juries are not associated with the word “guilty.” Well, thanks to the amazing work of prosecutors Mara McIlivain and Frances Young, Anand Jon was convicted of many counts of sexual assault. Anand Jon Alexander (born 1973 in India) is a former fashion designer turned convicted rapist who had previously appeared on “America's Next Top Model” and rose to fame in the fashion industry prior to being convicted of several counts of sexual abuse.

Jon was born in South India, and came to the U.S. to study at the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale and later at Parsons. He sold collections at stores including Bergdorf Goodman in New York City, Wilkes Bashford in San Francisco, and Luisa Via Roma in Florence, Italy. His clothes had been modeled by and designed for celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Rosario Dawson, Lawrence Fishburn, Gina Torres, Oprah Winfrey, and Janet Jackson.

In March 2007, Jon was arrested in in Beverly Hills on rape and related charges based on the allegations of numerous aspiring models. He was also charged with committing a lewd act on a child. After investigating, prosecutors added 15 additional felony counts to the list, and Jon was required to surrender his passport and ordered not to leave the country. He pleaded “not guilty” to all charges.

On November 13, 2008, Jon was convicted of 16 out of 23 counts of sexual abuse, including the forcible rape of seven women and girls aged 14 to 21. Jon is scheduled to be sentenced on January 13, 2009. Because the case involves special circumstances against multiple victims, the penalty is a mandatory life sentence, making him eligible for parole in 67 years (2075). Jon still faces charges in New York and is also under investigation for similar charges in Texas and Massachusetts.

11. Anthony Pellicano

Anthony Pellicano is a former high-profile Los Angeles private investigator who recently served a sentence in federal prison for illegal possession of explosives. He was arrested on February 4, 2006, for unlawful wiretapping and racketeering charges.

On May 15, 2008, after acting as his own lawyer and enduring a nine-day jury deliberation, Pellicano was found guilty on 76 of 77 counts related to racketeering, along with four co-defendants. However, a parade of wealthy witnesses admitted they knew about, paid for and listened to wiretaps, but were not charged. They included Alec Gores, a billionaire corporate buyout specialist; Freddy DeMann, a music executive who was once Madonna’s manager; Adam D. Sender, a hedge fund manager and onetime movie investor; and Andrew Stevens, an actor turned movie producer. Summing up, the prosecuting attorney stated that he chose to attack the supply rather than the demand, the way that vice investigators attack pimps and prostitutes rather than johns, because “that’s how you make a dent in it.” The johns in this case were the likes of Bert Fields, Brad Grey, Ron Meyer, Michael Ovitz and Chris Rock, all of whom paid Pellicano for services rendered.

“If the government has no plans to go higher than Pellicano, this is a depressingly pedestrian effort that shows a lack of ambition,” commented John C. Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert on white-collar crime, as quoted in the NY Times story on the verdict.

In a subsequent six-week Federal Court trial, Pellicano was convicted of wiretapping and conspiracy to commit wiretapping. Facing 78 guilty counts, Pellicano was sentenced in December 2008 to 15 years in prison, and ordered (with two other defendants) to forfeit $2 million.

12. Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter a.k.a “Clark Rockefeller”

Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, a.k.a. “Clark Rockefeller” is a German citizen who allegedly kidnapped his daughter, Reigh Storrow Mills Boss, on July 27, 2008. He was apprehended on August 2, 2008, and the daughter was returned to her mother, who lived in England.

Through fingerprint analysis, the FBI has confirmed that he is Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter of Bergen, Upper Bavaria in Germany. Alexander Gerhartsreiter, who lives in Bergen, identified "Rockefeller" as his brother, stating that they are the sons of a painter and homemaker, not the industrialists and philanthropists whose name symbolizes 20th Century American wealth and power.

Reportedly, Gerhartsreiter came to the United States as a West German foreign exchange student in 1979. Although his family states that Christian Gerhartsreiter was born 21 February 1961, he maintained that he was born 29 February, 1960. “Rockefeller” also told Boston police that his mother was Ann Carter, an American child actress of the 1940s, which Carter has denied.

On August 15, 2008, the FBI, the Massachusetts State Police, the Boston Police Department, and the Suffolk County District Attorney announced confirmation of the true identity of the individual who used the aliases Clark Rockefeller, Chris C. Crowe, Chris Chichester, Charles Smith, and Chip Smith, among others. According to their report, his real name was Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter. Gerhartsreiter was conclusively identified by means of forensic examinations conducted by the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia.

When Gerhartsreiter, using the name Clark Rockefeller, was arrested, his fingerprint impressions were taken by FBI agents in Baltimore and by Boston Police when he was returned to Massachusetts. Those fingerprints were compared to latent fingerprints lifted from a variety of sources. They match a latent print lifted from a wine glass in Boston collected at the time of the search for "Rockefeller" and his daughter earlier in the month. Those fingerprints also match a latent print developed from a document in Gerhartsreiter's immigration file from the early 1980s.

Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter is being held on charges he kidnapped his 7-year-old daughter last summer. He's also been named a "person of interest" in the 1985 disappearance of a California couple.

Tweet

Women in Crime Ink Welcomes Diane Dimond

Women in Crime Ink is proud to announce the latest addition to our lineup, Diane Dimond. You might recognize the famed crime reporter, author, and cable news anchor as a regular fill-in for CNN’s Nancy Grace. Diane Dimond may be best known for exposing and then explaining to the world the child molestation charges against Michael Jackson. Diane's coverage of Jackson’s criminal trial was seen by millions on Court TV, NBC’s The Today Show, MSNBC, Larry King Live and news outlets worldwide.
Her book on Jackson, Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case, is an explosive tome that details Diane’s exclusive revelations from when she first broke the story in 1993, to the case 10 years later when, once again, she was the first to report the latest charge of molestation.
Diane has been at the center of countless other major news stories as well. She stood in the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman the day their bodies were discovered. A few years earlier, Diane was the first to report the story of rape at the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach, Florida and to identify William Kennedy Smith as the accused. And Diane has been praised for her hard-hitting interviews with a number of infamous prison inmates including: Pamela Smart, a school teacher serving a life sentence for enticing her high school lover to kill her husband; James Earl Ray, the convicted assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Jeffrey McDonald, the convicted killer and subject of Fatal Vision; Kenneth Bianchi, the convicted “Hillside Strangler”; and Diane is the only reporter to have interviewed Richard Allen Davis, the convicted killer of Polly Klaas.
Diane began her broadcasting career in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At KKOB News Radio she wrote and anchored the morning newscasts and her investigative series on corruption within the local sheriff’s department earned her the prestigious Silver Gavel Award for Media and the Arts from the American Bar Association. In 1976, Diane moved across the country to Washington, DC to anchor newscasts for National Public Radio's “All Things Considered.” In 1980, she became Correspondent for RKO, the world's first satellite radio network, where she was assigned to cover Capitol Hill, the White House, and various Washington agencies. Diane became the network's National Political Correspondent and covered the campaigns of both President Ronald Reagan and his challenger Walter Mondale. Finally making a move into television in 1986, Diane’s first TV news job was at the flagship CBS Station in New York. At WCBS, Diane earned several awards for covering such groundbreaking stories as the “Baby M” surrogate mother case. Diane went into syndicated television in 1990, when she became the investigative reporter for the program Hard Copy. Diane's continuing coverage of the Michael Jackson story made the cut for TIME magazine's “Best TV of '93." Diane also made headlines when she acquired and aired the actual interrogation tape of O. J. Simpson being questioned by the Los Angeles Police Department. She then anchored the nationally syndicated program EXTRA and made headlines with her exposé of the deceptive practices of the Jerry Springer Show, among other investigative reports. In 1998, Diane moved to NBC and partnered with Geraldo Rivera to co-anchor CNBC’s nightly newscast, UpFront Tonight. Among other top-shelf stories, she anchored extensive live reports from Washington on the impeachment proceedings against former President Bill Clinton. After moving to MSNBC, Diane hosted the series, “Missing Persons,” anchored major news blocks and, among other stories, covered the historic 2000 Presidential campaign, traveling with three of the candidates, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and Ralph Nader. Diane also became known as the correspondent who spent 35 straight days outside Vice President Gore's residence in Washington as the nation awaited the final, controversial recount of the vote. In 2001, after the September 11th terror attacks in New York City, Diane anchored live programs on the Fox News Channel where she specialized in the network’s continuing coverage of the War on Terrorism. Her live interviews with military and policy newsmakers were often quoted by other news organizations. In 2003, Diane hosted "Hollywood at Large" on Court TV. More recently, Diane has been branching out on multi-media platforms to tell the stories she finds so fascinating. Last year, Diane was picked by the all-women GreenStone Media group to co-host their syndicated morning radio talk show and she can often be heard filling in on other major radio talk shows. She also writes a weekly crime and justice newspaper column. Diane has staked her place in the blogosphere with her own blog as well as a regular column with The Huffington Post.
Now Diane has joined Women in Crime Ink as our newest contributor. When there is a breaking crime story, you can read Diane's take here and you can follow her coverage on CNN, Fox News, truTV (formerly Court TV) and other cable outlets. Please join Women in Crime Ink in welcoming Diane Dimond. Look for Diane's first WCI post tomorrow, on Election Day. Diane will be writing on the one thing missing from this election. We're betting our readers can guess the topic. Feel free to leave a comment below for Diane. She would love to hear from you!

Tweet

O.J. Simpson - GUILTY!

by Katherine Scardino

It has finally happened. A jury in Las Vegas, Nevada did it. They told O.J. Simpson that he is guilty of a crime. Some people have been waiting for this for many years. A Las Vegas jury found O.J. Simpson guilty of all counts: conspiracy, robbery, kidnapping, and all done knowingly with a weapon. This verdict came thirteen years to the day that a Los Angeles jury aquitted him.

In 1995, when the jury in California found him Not Guilty of murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman, most of the sane world was astonished. How could this have happened? I understand totally how it happened, and I will remind you that a jury must find guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” You can say that it was his slick “dream team” of lawyers. I am sure that had something to do with it. Yet it has been my experience that you can be the slickest lawyer in the world, but you cannot change the basic facts.

In my office, I keep a pretty fairy wand that was given to me about 12 years ago. It was supposed to help me “change the facts” of cases. I have used it consistently, but to date, I have seen no real results. A lawyer can take the facts and try to mold them in a way that sounds better for your client, but the basic reality is still there.

A lawyer can provide the jury with reasons why his or her client was present during the killing or during a robbery, and hope that the jury will not believe that he was a participant or knew that the co-actor intended to kill or rob someone. But that is all you can do. A fact is a fact.

This Nevada court and the judge made some half-hearted attempt to keep the California murder trial out of this Nevada courtroom. But everyone, I’m sure, knew that would be realistically impossible—unless the “slick” defense lawyer could find a jury of 12 people who had been living under a rock in the Nevada desert for the last 15 years.

The lawyers were not supposed to mention the prior trial and verdict, but remember in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he said something like “make this the first real verdict” for O.J. Simpson. Well, it was clear what was meant . . . and the jury delivered for him.

I watched O.J. during the reading of the verdicts. O.J. has aged considerably since his last criminal trial. He was listening and waiting for the two-word verdict, but it did not come—ever—on any count. It was “guilty” all across the board. His face looked pained and I am sure Simpson, 61, is worried about the remainder of his life. This jury could sentence him to life in prison. He would be eligible at some point for parole, but at his age, for all practical purposes, it would be forever.

Why does this verdict make me a little sad? Is it because I am so used to fighting for the underdog, the oppressed? Am I so much a defense lawyer that I cannot see the guilt in anyone? I am beginning to wonder about myself. Do I want all defendants to win regardless of the facts of the case? No, I do not think that is it.

From what I saw and reported to you during the trial, it appeared that there was enough evidence that was presented to the jury that should have produced a “reasonable doubt” and the verdict should have been Not Guilty. The issue of whether O.J. knew that his co-defendant had a gun was not clear—at least to me and what I saw. Simpson’s attorney put up a good defense, but as with most criminal cases, the defense generally does not have many—or any—witnesses.

The defense here had one witness—and it was not O.J. Does it matter to juries whether the defendant testifies? I believe it makes a huge difference. My general rule is that in serious criminal cases, unless they have a prior criminal history a mile long, I make every effort to put the defendant on the stand to testify in front of the jury. If he is firm in his statement to you, his lawyer, that he did not do this crime—or, in O.J.’s case, that he did not know that the other guy was going in that room with a gun and all he wanted to do was retrieve his own property—then why not put him on the stand? A jury always, I repeat—always—wants to hear from the defendant. And a juror who is really honest with you will say that if the defendant does not testify, they will wonder why not.

A defense lawyer talks to the potential jurors during the jury selection process about whether their client will testify. You try to get a jury who understands every citizen’s constitutional right NOT to testify, but it really does not matter. In the average person’s mind, if you are “innocent” (which is another article in itself), then you should get on the stand and say so.

But what got me, and I bet what each individual juror was thinking, was this: Why in the world would O.J. not call the police to do this job for him? Why in the world would he think that it was acceptable for him and his cohorts to barge into this hotel room and do what he did? Why does he keep committing crimes—little or big? Does he think that he will always avoid repercussions of his actions? Does he think he is above the law? Maybe he did. But I bet he has changed his tune now. Waiting on sentencing can be very stressful and demeaning. Let’s see if he goes to prison, and for how long. For victims of crime, waiting on justice can be unbearable. I bet the Goldman family is raising several glasses of champagne. . . . What do you think?

Tweet

O.J. + Witnesses on the Rocks = Recipe for Reasonable Doubt?

by Katherine Scardino

One of the neatest things about being a defense attorney is cross examination. The defense lawyer gets to do almost anything in cross and there is always a surprise somewhere. You can get in the witness’s face; you can confront him with telling a different story prior to his testimony in trial. You know the famous question: “Were you lying then, or are you lying now? . . .”

I can’t imagine anyone who has been to law school not wanting to be a defense lawyer—just to be able to cross examine lying cops or lying witnesses. The most fun of cross examination is the witness who just is not sure what he wants to say—i.e., "Who are you really testifying for, sir? . . ."

I was reminded of this while watching the O.J. Simpson trial unfold in Las Vegas. O.J.’s co-defendant Charles Ehrlich was back on the witness stand yesterday to face cross-examination from defense attorney Yale Galanter about exactly what O.J. knew about the use of guns.

I would have loved to have been the lawyer to cross Ehrlich (mugshot left). The issue of what O.J. knew about the guns is critical to his case, since pulling a gun while committing a crime enhances the amount of time a defendant may have to serve. In response to Galanter’s question as to whether it was the understanding that nothing illegal was going to occur, Ehrlich said, “Correct.”

Galanter then asked, “This was nothing but a recovery of stolen property, correct?”

"Correct," Ehrlich said.

But there was one hitch. On Monday, Ehrlich testified in response to questioning by the prosecutor that he saw two people with guns during the alleged armed robbery and kidnapping at the Palace Station Casino Hotel. Ehrlich said that one of the people waved around a black gun. Supposedly, the person who was brandishing this black gun was another co-defendant, Michael McClinton, who has already taken a plea deal from the State.

Ehrlich also testified that he heard someone shouting “Put the gun away” and he thought this person doing the shouting was Simpson. That would have meant that Simpson knew that during this offense, there was a weapon out and being used. Ehrlich did not say anything about whether Simpson knew before the confrontation that a gun was in McClinton’s pocket.

So after cross examination by Galanter, this witness’s testimony became almost irrelevant for the State. Now, the jury has two versions to consider—one good for Simpson and one not so good for Simpson.

Monday, the jury heard testimony from another State witness, Thomas Riccio, who admitted that he had received $210,000 from the media deals he had made after secretly recording the incident. Riccio supported O.J.’s contention that Simpson had been insistent that the purpose of this incident was only to recover personal items that had previously been stolen from him. He further stated that Simpson was not aware of the use of any guns. But just the fact that he recorded the eight-minute incident—and that he profited substantially by his recording—is enough, at least for me, to be suspicious as to his motives and intent in putting together the whole shenanigan.

So . . . the bottom line so far is that we have a spider web of stories—all intertwined, all similar, but not quite. Does that mean “reasonable doubt” to the jury? It should, but will it? Let’s keep watching. . . .

Tweet

The O.J. Simpson Trial - Disorder in the Court

by Katherine Scardino

I have been watching CNN's live coverage of the O. J. Simpson trial and I am amazed at a few issues. First of all, this judge is worse than Judge Ito. And she is female, which is more distressing for me, as a woman who relishes seeing and knowing successful women who have made it in a man’s world.

I can only imagine what this jury is thinking about this entire fiasco. . . . Speaking of the jury—it is composed of 9 women and 3 men, all white. During jury selection, the defense objected to the State’s exclusion of all blacks, but the judge ruled that the State had made a racially neutral explanation for such exclusion, and overruled the defense objection.

This judge is not very “judicial.” She is having a hard time controlling Simpson's defense lawyer, Yale Galanter. I have been watching his demeanor with this judge, and he is not letting her intimidate him at all. I like that. There is a fine line between standing your ground and facing the “chief” in the courtroom in situations where you believe you are procedurally correct and putting your tail between your legs and sitting down and “obeying” orders, like a good little pup. That fine line could result in the defense attorney being held in contempt of court and possibly jailed. One of our cohorts in Women in Crime Ink, Vanessa Leggett, is well aware of this possibility after she refused to divulge the source of her information about a case, and consequently spent several months in the Federal Detention Center in Houston, Texas. I admire her for that. Not many people will stand up to a judge.

But, getting back to the subject . . . the State's first witness was Bruce Fromong, the sports memorabilia dealer O. J. is accused of robbing. Fromong testified that money was not an objective of this sordid incident. But then under cross examination, Mr. Galanter and the defense attorney for co-defendant C. J. Stewart, got Fromong to admit that he had threatened to call “First Edition” and had demanded a large sum of money. I could not tell for certain, but I believe that he did receive a sum of cash for a copy of the audiotapes. This witness looks sleazy, unethical and the perfect idiot who could be convinced by the State or by a conniving cop to tape some stupid deal like this one and make it look like O. J. Simpson was committing an aggravated robbery.

Yesterday, the lead detective was on the stand. I watched his testimony for a while and it was obvious to me that when he was being questioned by the defense attorneys, he was slow to respond, did not answer the question asked, and attempted to avoid answering questions. But, when the State’s attorney asked him questions, he sat up in his chair, responded properly, looked at the jury, and was generally a responsive, interesting witness.

This has happened to me on many occasions, and I can tell you, it is very frustrating. Sometimes, I just want to jump up out of my chair and run to the desultory detective or cop and shake him! This detective did not even run a background check on the complainants. If he had, it was apparent from the line of questioning that he would have found criminal backgrounds. Nor did this detective ask for any proof that the property that O. J. Simpson was attempting to get back belonged to these complainants. He did not ask for any receipts or any evidence at all that they, in fact, did “own” this property which obviously belonged to Simpson.

Anyway, it is interesting. I’ll keep watching. . . .

Tweet

Squeezing O.J. - Will Round II Get the Juice?

by Katherine Scardino

I am not sure whether I want to write something about O.J. Simpson. After the criminal trial in 1994, we all probably said something to the effect of "I hope I never hear this man's name again for the rest of my life."

I know there were people who watched every minute of that murder trial in California over a decade ago—you know, the one that lasted almost a year! And with an equally startling verdict.

During that trial, I remember being called by a member of the press in Houston, Texas, where I live, and asked to basically "guess" what the jury was going to do.

This phone call came during jury deliberations and—in all fairness to the newspaper reporter—he was thinking that because I had been practicing criminal law in Houston for a while, and had tried more than a few criminal cases, I might have some insight or clue as to what the jury would do.

Well, in my most J.D.-educated tone, I told him I thought that surely this jury would find Mr. Simpson guilty of murdering his wife and Mr. Goldman.

I had watched enough of the trial to feel that he was guilty. But I also recognized that Barry Scheck, Johnny Cochran, and the other members of his defense team did a fantastic job of "smoke and mirrors" and that the two prosecutors were totally outclassed and outlawyered by that so-called Dream Team. That is not supposed to matter . . . but in the glare of that circus, it was obvious.

All the same, I still felt that the State had put on enough evidence for the jury to legitimately find this man guilty.

Now we are in the midst of criminal trial number two for O.J. Simpson. This one is a crummy sequel to the first case. He is currently on trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for armed robbery and kidnapping. I have been following the newspaper about as much as you probably have—and with about as much interest.

Then I started thinking, which is a dangerous thing for me to do . . . but here are my thoughts. First, don't be mislead by the fact that he is accused of "armed robbery." He is not being charged with robbing these people of the property that he maintains was his.

No, O.J. Simpson is being tried for robbery because when he and his cohorts stormed into that hotel room, he snatched a cell phone, hat, and sunglasses (which probably actually fell off the man's face) from one of the people in the room.

Second, the "kidnapping" charge arose from a statement Simpson made on the eight-minute audiotape of this incident: "No one leaves. Do not let anyone leave this room." So that is the kidnapping part of his felony charge that could mean a life sentence for O.J.

Then, as if this is not enough, in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he told the jury to let this be the "true verdict."

Of course, the judge had instructed the jury that the California criminal trial was not to have any impact on their consideration of the facts in this case. Right! And, the prosecution was not to mention that trial. So, this prosecutor simply implied to the jury that regardless of the verdict in California, this verdict should be the "true verdict."

And he also mentioned in his opening statement that the jury will hear the "true O.J. Simpson" as opposed to O.J.'s public persona.

While not mentioning the murder trial, he alluded to it in the words he chose to use in front of this Las Vegas jury.

So where is this going? I am tending to believe more and more that this is a set up by O. J.'s alleged "friends." Otherwise, why the full audiotape of this entire incident?

And we have to remember, that "rant" of O.J. Simpson may just be that. He is not being charged with using profane language or with losing his temper because he wanted his "s----" back.

There is always the possibility of a jury finding him guilty because of his history, the language he used, the anger he exhibited, the fact that many people around the world, not just the United States, believe that O.J. is guilty of murder and got away with it.

And this trial may be the last chance a wrong can be made right.

O.J. Simpson might get life in prison for knocking a man's sunglasses and cap off his head, and by saying that no one could leave the room. (Lord, I hope we have not resorted to revenge verdicts.)

Let's keep watching. I'll write more as the case progresses. . . .

Tweet