This is getting rather bizarre. JLA is an attorney. I have received a fax from his office, with cover stationary attesting to his being the boss. Another friend, for whom he did legal work, read a couple of articles on his legal specialty that were published in the state bar journal, and conveyed her impression to me. Given the staff table of his office and out- of- state associates, I have reason to believe that he is prosperous, apart from anything he has said.
Now, it is true that he does not specialize in the criminal law, and therefore would not be scrupulous about labelling someone a felon. However, a felon is someone who has committed a felony, not someone convicted. Someone wrongfully convicted might be supposed a felon, but it is an erroneous supposition, although there is no doubt he is a convict. Someone brought before the bar is an alleged felon, but for the purposes of trial, we weigh the allegations with the thumbs on the scale in favor of the defendant. It is probable that most of those who go free are, in fact, felons, because the standard of proof is so high, and exclusionary rules are so stringent. In civil court, OJ was found to be liable for wrongful death, because the standard is "preponderance of evidence", and because some things that had been excluded in the criminal trial made it into the civil trial.
Just as we are at liberty to question the integrity of a trial and wonder if someone convicted might not be guilty, we are at liberty to distrust the failure to convict. Have you seen "Ghosts of Mississippi"? Beckwith was guilty as sin, but for years, no jury would convict him. He was retried because it was widely known the trial was tainted by racial bias. In the end, justice was done...... |
