Public Needs to Pay Attention to Mehserle Trial
Posted by King Anyi Howell on June 15, 2010 at 02:47pm
 

Originally published at SFGate.Com.

I watched the shooting of Oscar Grant online before I saw it played in court. Grant, a young black man, was shot while lying facedown on the platform at BART's Fruitvale Station in Oakland by Johannes Mehserle, a white BART police officer. The incident was caught on video with cell phones by several passengers on the BART platform and replayed thousands of times on YouTube.

In the first few days of Mehserle's trial, the video of Grant's shooting has played repeatedly. It is not an easy thing to make sense of what happened that night and why. It is not an easy thing to sit in court with Grant's family. You see family members wince each time they view his final moments, over and over again. Grant's uncle, Cephus Johnson, told me "It's very stressful to sit in court. The old wound is being reopened."

The trial of the former transit officer Mehserle, moved to Los Angeles after protests and intense media scrutiny in the Bay Area, involves this simple question: Was the shooting intentional or accidental?

The prosecution, led by Alameda County Deputy District Attorney David Stein, wants to prove that Mehserle's training and discipline took a back seat to anger and aggression.

Michael Rains' defense strategy is to prove that this was a tragic accident, and that Mehserle meant to shock Grant with a Taser, not shoot him with his gun.

There is something missing at the trial, something that made the case what it was: There are no cameras, no cell phones, no computers and no audio recordings in the courtroom.

Judge Ronald Perry ruled against a media request to televise the case. Each day I go into court, I turn off my computer and my phone. I take out a notepad and a pen. While it would be easier to use technology to capture this trial as it unfolds, I'm glad that cameras and recording equipment aren't allowed in the court.

Don't get me wrong - we have the responsibility to report on the trial. But it is vitally important that the jury weigh the facts of the case without the pressure of cameras. This way, no side can play to a television audience. And frankly, this trial, chock full of gore and expletives, would be rated TV-MA.

Just because there are no cameras in the courtroom doesn't mean I want this trial to go quietly. It is an emotional case, and it needs to be tried on the merits. Fairness requires transparency and that means the public needs to pay attention to the case. An incident like this can easily happen anywhere, not just Oakland.

Click here for more multimedia stories about the Oscar Grant case.




Comments

re: I'm glad that cameras and recording equipment aren't allowed

I'm most definitely not. Many trials are public, either by video for near-live broadcast or by audio for historical and archival purposes. Instead, the only record we'll have is the transcripts, if anyone wants to shell out the two grand they'll cost and post them online somewhere. Or, or course, we'll have notoriously pro-police corporate media reports that ignore large swaths of what actually happens inside the courtroom. As for cameras and the jury, I am not concerned that they might feel pressured to vote one way or another because they know the public is watching. Good, they should feel accountable for what they do. What really scares the hell out of me is that, because they know the public has largely been cut out of the proceedings, they will feel they can get away with ignoring solid evidence and vote to acquit based on their own pro-police leanings (as numerous jurors admitted to having law enforcement connections). The full light of day is always the best guarantor of justice. The judge turned off the light, or seriously dimmed it, and it's sad that you believe that's a good thing in a case of such monumental importance.

Good piece, Anyi. Would

Good piece, Anyi. Would like to hear more of your take about cameras and the absence of technology. I also hope you are thinking of writing some longer pieces on this. JM

Does it matter?

Does it matter if it was intentional or accidental? A citizen was shot and killed by a guy who, because he has a badge, gets a gun. Training or no training, I think it's safe to say you know when you have a gun in your hand. Officer Mehserle is not only a disgrace to the badge, but a disgrace to humanity. He shot a man in the back, while he was on the ground. His partner Pirone should also get jail time. Accidental shootings for everyday citizens that result in a death are treated as manslaughter. Cops should be held to a higher standard. This man needs to go away for a very long time, and if it's proven that it was intentional, I hope they give him some of that Potassium Chloride, and I'm a white guy. Great coverage of the case, Anyi. Keep it up.

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
california department of managed health care

buy viagra australia online

what is the deductible in health insurance

buy levitra online

department of health and mental hygiene new york

cialis online

registered diagnostic medical sonographer

viagra online

canadian health insurance companies

levitra australia

affordable health insurance plans for individuals

viagra australia online

well designed annual reports

online pharmacy

united health group careers

levitra online ingen recept

the doctor s fob watch

generisk viagra online

medical assistant jobs in el paso tx

generisk cialis online

mt sinai internal medicine residency

adderall