|
|
|
When the jury in O.J. Simpson's murder trial announced its not guilty verdict, it was (and still is) the opinion of many that justice hand not been served. And while the jury was chastised for only deliberating for four hours, no one could dispute the fact that the justice system worked properly on the jury's end and members reached their decisions and delivered their opinion legally.
So does this mean all juries' verdicts stand forever and ever? Hardly. While not-guilty verdicts cannot be overturned (double jeopardy), there are those that really should be scrapped, like when new evidence turns up that can exonerate a convict or misconduct on the part of the law occurred. And then there are the ones judges arbitrarily decide to throw out because they just don't like it.
This appears to be the case with Howard K. Stern and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, who were convicted of a two drug conspiracy charges in former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith's death. The jury in that case sifted through nine weeks worth of trial material before settling on these charges and dismissing several others.
Judge Robert Perry, who oversaw the case touted by prosecutors as a way to send a message to doctors who over-prescribe medications to celebrities, announced Thursday that he had tossed the conspiracy convictions and reduced the one remaining count of obtaining a narcotic by fraud against the doctor to a misdemeanor. His reasoning: Smith was not an addict under the law, but merely a woman seeking to control her pain, possibly spurred by her celebrity status. Perry found that both her lawyer/lover Stern and psychiatrist Eroshevich never intended to defraud anyone in using false names to obtain prescriptions but were trying to protect Smith's privacy and acted solely out of concern for here. After all, he added, prescription drug use can be misinterpreted by the public and harm a celebrity's career.
So a person who obtains a narcotic prescription under a false name for someone else he/she is only doing it out of concern and, therefore, should not be convicted of violating the false name statute, even though in context that law certainly was broken?
Perry also considers the case overly complicated and not supported by sufficient evidence. He did say he saw weaknesses in the case during the trial but let it go on to the jury anyway. In handing down minimal verdicts, he suggested the jury was repudiating the prosecution, which he maintained did not understand the legislative intent of the law involving prescription drugs.
When the jury in O.J. Simpson's murder trial announced its not guilty verdict, it was (and still is) the opinion of many that justice hand not been served. And while the jury was chastised for only deliberating for four hours, no one could dispute the fact that the justice system worked properly on the jury's end and members reached their decisions and delivered their opinion legally.
So does this mean all juries' verdicts stand forever and ever? Hardly. While not-guilty verdicts cannot be overturned (double jeopardy), there are those that really should be scrapped, like when new evidence turns up that can exonerate a convict or misconduct on the part of the law occurred. And then there are the ones judges arbitrarily decide to throw out because they just don't like it.
This appears to be the case with Howard K. Stern and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, who were convicted of a two drug conspiracy charges in former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith's death. The jury in that case sifted through nine weeks worth of trial material before settling on these charges and dismissing several others.
Judge Robert Perry, who oversaw the case touted by prosecutors as a way to send a message to doctors who over-prescribe medications to celebrities, announced Thursday that he had tossed the conspiracy convictions and reduced the one remaining count of obtaining a narcotic by fraud against the doctor to a misdemeanor. His reasoning: Smith was not an addict under the law, but merely a woman seeking to control her pain, possibly spurred by her celebrity status. Perry found that both her lawyer/lover Stern and psychiatrist Eroshevich never intended to defraud anyone in using false names to obtain prescriptions but were trying to protect Smith's privacy and acted solely out of concern for here. After all, he added, prescription drug use can be misinterpreted by the public and harm a celebrity's career.
So a person who obtains a narcotic prescription under a false name for someone else he/she is only doing it out of concern and, therefore, should not be convicted of violating the false name statute, even though in context that law certainly was broken?
Perry also considers the case overly complicated and not supported by sufficient evidence. He did say he saw weaknesses in the case during the trial but let it go on to the jury anyway. In handing down minimal verdicts, he suggested the jury was repudiating the prosecution, which he maintained did not understand the legislative intent of the law involving prescription drugs.
In other words, if the jury had dismissed all 11 counts, the judge would've been happy. Because it determined that three laws had been violated, though, Perry claims he could not morally allow these convictions to stand. After all, Stern's and Eroshevich's careers might have been history if they did, as their professional licenses could have been revoked. Now, these wonderful people whose only apparent crimes were that they cared so much for a really messed up woman can get back to business as usual without giving a second thought to the matter.
Thank goodness there aren't a whole lot of judges like Perry out there, but there should not be any. His blatant disregard of a jury's verdict puts the whole justice system in jeopardy. It was not his place to set aside the verdict – that's what appeals courts are for. In essence, he's saying the jury screwed up and weren't qualified to hand down a verdict – unless, of course, it was one he like.
Prosecutors plan to appeal Perry's decision, as it should. While they're at, maybe they should try to boot him from the bench.
