I began to hear it shortly after the first verdict in the famed British au pair murder case.
Several folks interviewed at random on the street by television reporters here and in England said Louise Woodward, 19, couldn’t be guilty of killing her charge, 8-month-old Matthew Eappen. Why? Simple. “She doesn’t look like she’s guilty,” said one woman.
“She doesn’t look like she could have done it,” said another.
Well, who are you going to believe? The facts? Or your own eyes?
Pardon me, but, would someone please tell me what a guilty person looks like?
Do they look mean, surly and shifty-eyed?
Do they have tattoos, hair on their knuckles and missing teeth?
Are guilty people supposed to be poor? Male? Ungrammatical? Non-white?
What is the look of innocence? Young? Clean-cut? Apple-cheeked? European?
Would a young, black nanny from, say, Trinidad or Barbados have received as much of our attention or as much of the benefit of our doubts?
If we could all settle on what a guilty person looks like, we could save a lot of the time and money we spend on trials. Instead, we simply could have beauty contests.
To their credit, the jury in the Louise Woodward case went beyond appearances. They looked and listened to the facts. They determined that Woodward was responsible for the death of the child, with whom she admitted to being “a little rough” when she grew frustrated with his crying.
But, even here, looks might have played a role. There are many who speculate that the jury might have ruled the other way had Woodward only “looked” a little more contrite–had not sat there sturdy and upright with the aplomb and stiff upper lip so characteristic of British tradition.
Her attorneys, led by Barry Scheck of the famed O.J. Simpson defense team, took a gamble by ruling out a manslaughter conviction as an option. Forced to choose between finding her guilty of second-degree murder or letting her walk, the jury found her guilty of second-degree murder–which carries a mandatory life sentence with the possibility of parole after 15 years served.
That was the shocker that rocked around the world. Among other follies exposed by this trial is the double edge of the mandatory sentence. Taking discretion away from judges is a popular idea, it appears, until a sympathetic-looking defendant comes along.
Some good may already have come out of that. In a stunning reversal, Rep. John P. Slattery (Mass.), switched his vote on Nov. 6 and blocked a vote to reinstate the death penalty after the Woodward’s jury verdict reminded him of the frailties of the jury system. “It left me feeling that we can’t always be certain that we executed the right guy,” he said in a speech from the House floor.
No, not as long as appearances, among other irrelevancies, matter.
For backing the jury into a corner in its choices of verdicts, Scheck looked like a dunce, until Judge Hiller B. Zobel bailed him out by reducing her conviction to involuntary manslaughter and reducing her sentence to the time she already served.
Then Louise Woodward walked free after 279 days.
That’s 17 days longer than Matthew Eappen lived.
Apparently aware of the thrashing he would receive no matter which way he ruled, Judge Zobel opened his 16-page decision by quoting what lawyer John Adams told a Massachusetts jury while defending British citizens charged with murder in 1770. The law, Adams said, must be “deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace.”
Quite true. Zobel ruled justly when he decided Woodward’s actions were characterized by “confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity and some anger, but not malice (in the legal sense)” and therefore unworthy of the murder charge.
But, if “life” was too harsh a penalty, “time served” was too little, in my view, if we are going to take the question of justice for little Matthew seriously.
As a defender of the idea of cameras in the courtroom, it pains me to see how much cases like Woodward’s reveal its pitfalls. Thanks to television, we have been able to see the defendant every day, but not her victim. Even if this does not persuade the jury, it captures the hearts of the rest of us and raises the “clamours of the populace” to a level very hard to ignore. Judges are humans, not adders.
Louise Woodward has America’s justice system to thank for her freedom. It gives defendants the right to appeal guilty verdicts. It gives prosecutors virtually no appeals of not guilty verdicts. This gives an important edge to the rights of the accused.
But, if justice is to be protected for all, we need to look deeper than looks.
