We heard two very different tales from law courts in the USA, one of which, I personally find more than a little disturbing.
Lamar Johnson, who had pleaded innocent was convicted of a killing over a $40 drug debt and received a life sentence while another suspect under a so-called, “sweetheart deal”, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge in exchange for a seven-year prison term.
In the meantime Johnson has since spent 26 years behind bars.
Now based on the misconduct of one of her office’s former prosecutors, in that secret payments had been made to a witness, police reports had been falsified and testimony perjured, an appeal was brought by St Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner.
You might think that since it had been established that a witness to the killing had been bribed to lie and subsequently withdrew his testimony, and two other people have subsequently confessed to the crime, that this was a sound basis for an appeal.
But no, the Missouri Supreme Court says that as the murder took place so long ago, the man jailed for the killing cannot be released!
In their ruling the court says “This case is not about the innocence or guilt of the man jailed for the murder but only to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and the proper procedure followed.”
The Attorney General’s Office states that it’s clear that the law does not allow the filing of a new trial almost 25 years too late!
Not surprisingly the former prosecutor and detective involved have rejected the allegations made by the Attorney General.
Seems extraordinary to me, but what do I know?
Meanwhile in another court, Californian plastic surgeon, Dr Scott Green turned up for a hearing using Zoom, concerning a traffic violation. Nothing too surprising about that you might say, except that he was actually in the middle of operating on a patient at the time!
Beeps from the medical machinery could be heard in the background as the court proceeding got under way.
A clerk from the court queried whether the doctor was truly ready and available for his trial as it appeared that he was in an operating room.
Although the doctor confirmed that he was indeed in the middle of a surgical operation, he urged the court officials to proceed. He then appeared on screen with his head down as he proceeded with the operation in hand but when the judge entered the courtroom, he said that he was reluctant to proceed over concerns for the patient’s welfare.
The doctor dismissed these concerns telling the judge that he had another doctor working with him on the operation.
Nevertheless the judge, perhaps wondering if he or one of his friends might one day find themselves in this surgeon’s tender care, insisted that it wasn’t appropriate to conduct a trial under such conditions.
The Medical Board of California says it is looking into the incident, and expects surgeons to follow the standard of care when treating their patients.
Only in America (well, at least I hope so!).
See you again tomorrow,
Scott
