Not really liking this

Legally, an excellent defense. Given the disconnect between law and morality, it's hard to fault. But it still leaves me feeling a bit disquieted. I can't remember another case where the defense was that the accused was guilty of another crime, which charge they beat, and the nature of that crime was such that they couldn't be guilty of the current charges.

This defense sounds true. Which means the previous defense was a successful lie. And Nelson will be found guilty, making this an unsuccessful truth.

The lessons drawn from this one, on all sides, will be unfortunate.

From the NY Times
In Twist, Defendant Admits to Stabbing in '91 Racial Unrest
By ANDY NEWMAN

Through almost 12 years and two previous trials, lawyers for Lemrick Nelson Jr. denied that he was involved in the killing of an Orthodox Jew named Yankel Rosenbaum during the racial unrest in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in 1991.

Yesterday, Mr. Nelson's new lawyers tried a new defense: Mr. Nelson did stab Mr. Rosenbaum.

But he did not do it, they said, because the victim was Jewish. Rather, Mr. Nelson, who was then 16, stabbed Mr. Rosenbaum because Mr. Nelson was drunk and swept up in the chaos of the moment, said his lawyer, Richard M. Jasper.

Therefore, Mr. Jasper said in the opening of Mr. Nelson's retrial in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, Mr. Nelson was not guilty of violating Mr. Rosenbaum's civil rights, the crime for which he is being tried.

"Mr. Nelson is saying that he participated in an attack not because he was Jewish," said Mr. Jasper, referring to Mr. Rosenbaum, "but because he ran out there and got high."

Mr. Nelson was acquitted of murder and related charges in a 1992 state trial, so he cannot be tried again on those criminal counts.

posted by Prometheus 6 at 4/29/2003 09:20:20 AM |