UPDATE: Verdict is involutary manslaughter, per KGO-AM Radio (San Francisco)
UPDATE:"This is not Justice" Yolanda, Oscar Grant's sister-in-law. KGO-AM radio.
::
Original Diary:
A verdict has been reached in the trial of former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle, whose killing of Oscar Grant was video recorded by Grant's fellow train passengers and disseminated widely on the internet. It's scheduled to be announced at 4:00 pm PDT today. (as diaried here)
A jury of seven whites, four Latinos and one decline-to-state (who has also been reported as East Indian) will decide Mehserle's fate. (One of these was replaced by an alternate earlier this week)
My diary title asks if the racial makeup of the jury matters. I'm interested in everyone's opinion. My own answer is yes, it matters, and I'll explain why I think so.
Let's make the jump.
First a quick review and recap of what's happened since the New Year's day shooting in 2009.
No one is disputing one basic fact: Mehserle, the white officer for the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) police force, shot and killed Grant, who is black.
Mehserle resigned from the force shortly afterwards, ending his obligation to answer to an internal affairs investigation. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office picked up the case, and charged Mehserle with murder.
The trial was moved out of Oakland (the county seat of Alameda County) and moved to Los Angeles. This was widely seen as favorable for the defense, who wanted the case moved out of Oakland. In a sense it was also a partial victory of sorts for the prosecution, who at least wanted it tried in another urban setting instead of a suburban setting
Speaking of suburban settings, let's compare the Grant case with the 1991 beating of black motorist Rodney King by several white officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. A video was captured and widely seen, on television, of the beating. The trial was moved to Simi Valley.
The initial judge was replaced, and the new judge changed the venue, as well as the jury pool, citing contamination of the jury pool by the media coverage. The new venue was a new courthouse in Simi Valley in neighboring Ventura County. The jury consisted of Ventura County residents—ten white, one Latino and one Asian. The prosecutor, Terry White, was African-American. On April 29, 1992, the jury acquitted three of the officers, but could not agree about one of the charges for Powell.[2]
Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley said, "the jury's verdict will not blind us to what we saw on that videotape. The men who beat Rodney King do not deserve to wear the uniform of the L.A.P.D."[20] link
To the outside world, meaning anyone who wasn't in the courtroom, the case seemed pretty clear. We all saw the video tape. We all saw King beaten. It seemed pretty straightforward.
But the jurists of the case, came to a much different conclusion. Unfortunately, we in the public didn't get to see much of their thought process. So for most of the public who saw the video of the beating, including me, it was a major shock - an outrage - that the officers were found innocent. The reaction was tragic.
The news of acquittal triggered the Los Angeles riots of 1992. By the time the police, the U.S. Army, the Marines and the National Guard restored order, the casualties included 53 deaths, 2,383 injuries, more than 7,000 fires, damages to 3,100 businesses, and nearly $1 billion in financial losses. Smaller riots occurred in other cities such as Las Vegas and Atlanta. On May 1, 1992, the third day of the L.A. riots, King appeared in public before television news cameras to appeal for peace ...
Given the way things were set up, I personally can understand the outrage - I felt the outrage. I'm not condoning rioting, and I feel sad for the people it hurt. But I also understand why it happened - or perhaps I'd be better to say that I understand the sheer futility felt and the outrage experienced that led, at least in part, to the violence. (Note: there are many complex reasons that are debated as to being the reasons for the '92 riots in L.A. I'm not pretending to wholly address them in this paragraph.)
:: ::
So what's happening in the trial of the man who killed Oscar Grant? There are no blacks on the jury. The trial has not been televised, which I think is a big mistake. If the trial ends in acquittal, this is a recipe for disaster. People will not have seen the day-to-day proceedings. People will not have seen the evidence presented. What people have seen is Grant laying face down and being shot from behind and killed by former Officer Mehserle.
If Mehserle is acquitted, some people may suspect corruption. Some people may suspect racism. Some people may claim that non-Black jurists can't understand the indignation of the Black community over what it sees as repeated injustices.
And in my opinion, who could blame someone for thinking that, given the way this was set up?
There was a diary on Tuesday that expressed the outrage felt over this case - and it seemed to me that perhaps not enough people here understood that outrage. People in the comments were technically correct in pointing out a legal point about using "murdering" in the title, but it didn't seem that enough people understood the (to me, justified) outrage that I'm guessing put the word in the title in first place.
Now I certainly hope that in the reaction to the Grant trial decision, that there is no violence. I pray for that. But I don't think the system has done the best job that it could have to mitigate and prevent that from happening.
So that's what I think. As we wait the half hour or so for the verdict to be announced, I'm curious what do you think? Please answer in the comments. Let's also please try to be respectful of each other in expressing opinions here today.
Thanks for reading.