We can agree that a proven murderer should not receive clemency (“No clemency for murderer Peltier,” Editorial, Dec. 22). But I reject the Tribune’s underlying opinion that a person is not entitled to a fair trial before being branded a murderer. In reluctantly affirming Peltier’s conviction, the Court of Appeals concluded: “There is a possibility that the jury may have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been available to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies cast in strong doubts upon the government’s case.”
The Tribune grudgingly admits, “The government was . . . slow to give Peltier’s attorneys several documents related” to his defense.
Slow indeed!
Our very own government illegally withheld crucial ballistics test documents (which, in the words of the Court of Appeals, cast “strong doubts upon the government’s case”) until after Peltier had been convicted. That the suppressed documents came to light only after Peltier was convicted shackled him with an insurmountably high burden of proof on appeal–a burden the Court of Appeals reluctantly held he could not meet.
Our court system inspires confidence in its results only when the process is fair. At a minimum, fairness requires that the government not illegally suppress evidence critical to a person’s defense. The Tribune confidently declares that “Peltier is as guilty as it gets.” I wish we all could be so sure.
