what is a trial

8/2/2019 What is a trial

1/6

What is a trial?

Conviction despite Innocence

9/5/2011

Christelle Bangsi


2/6

2

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a criminal trial as the formal examination of

evidence before a judge and typically before a jury in order to decide guilt in cases of criminal

proceedings. Under normal circumstances, guilt is proven and justice served, but that is not

always the case. There have been some controversial cases throughout history in which

defendants were wrongfully convicted based on evidence which was believed at the time to be

true or sometimes because of other external influences. These may include inept defense

lawyers, overzealous prosecutors, deceitful interrogation tactics, bad science, opportunistic

informants, and faulty eye witnesses. Therefore, even though justice and peace are supposed to

be established, trials sometimes lead to wrong convictions and ruined lives.

Case in point, the McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial of 1983. Judy Johnson, mother of two

and a half year Billy Johnson, called the police complaining that her son had been molested in

school. In an interview with the police, little Billy said he had been molested, had been

sodomized by Ray Buckey while his head was in the toilet, and being locked in a car trunk while

they were at a car wash. Therefore, 25 - year old Ray was arrested. Letters were sent to 200

parents of the pre-schoolers letting them know Ray was a child abuse suspect and asking for

information. As the investigation went on, Kee MacFarlane, consultant of the Childrens Institute

International was asked to interview the pre- schoolers. Using unethical methods such as

rewarding the kids for right answers or telling them the McMartin staff were bad people and

giving them anatomically correct dolls to play with, she was able to announce over 360

students as sexually abused. Over 30 individuals were placed under investigation, including


3/6

3

Peggy Buckey and Virginia McMartin, owners of the school. In over 397 counts, they were

accused of causing intentional emotional distress and sexual molestation. Eventually, charges

were dropped against everybody but The Buckeys, by then prosecution started doubting the case.

Evidence was found that Judy Johnson, mother of Billy Johnson was mentally unstable and two

years after trial began, she died of alcohol poisoning. The verdict on the first trial completely

acquitted the Buckeys, but due to pressure from parents a second trial was held. The second

verdict was still an acquittal and despite some public uproar, a third trial was not granted. By

then the two prosecutions had cost over 15 million dollars and had stretched for over 7 years

the longest and most costly trial in the United States history. Furthermore, the state had nobody

to convict of these supposed molestations. Eventually, Peggy, Ann and Ray Buckey were found

innocent, but the damage was extensive. Their business was shut down, they lost all their

property to pay for their cases, there was trauma from their jail experiences and till this day,

there are still people who believe them to be guilty.

Another similar case is The Dingo Trial of August 1980. The Chamberlains were

vacationing with their children, including their 10 week old daughter Azaria at Ayers Rock,

Australia when she disappeared from the family tent where her mother laid her down to sleep.

After some research and expert advice, Coroner Barritt found that Azaria had been killed by a

dingo. Investigation by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory discredited the first inquest

and ordered a second inquest by Gerry Galvin. Coroner Galvin found Lindy Chamberlain guilty

of her daughters murder and her husband Michael Chamberlain as serving as an accessory after

the fact. Two years later, the trial opened and after a jury decision, Lindy was sentenced to life at

hard labor for Azarias death, while Michaels sentence was deferred even though he was guilty

of serving as an accessory after the fact. The Federal Court rejected Lindys appeal and later on


4/6

4

Australias High Court decided to uphold Lindys conviction. By then some people had started

questioning the Chamberlains guilt and started writing books and petition for Lindys release,

this too was rejected. About five years after Azarias death, an unfortunate accident led to the

discovery of the matinee jacket Azaria wore that fateful morning at Ayers Rock. The Northern

Territory Government announced a third inquest into the case and Lindy was released and she

and Michael, through a special government enactment were able to get their convictions quashed

through The Court of Appeal. Media attention was at an all-time high, hour-long interviews were

released which suggested the Chamberlains were innocent and a movie A Cry in the Dark was

released. The conclusion of the third inquest ruled that the cause of Azarias death cannot be

determined. Even though Lindy received 1.3 million dollars as government compensation for

wrongful accusation and imprisonment, it should never have happened. The public assumed the

worst of the Chamberlains partly because they were both influential members of The Seventh

Day Adventist Church, a very controversial church in Australia. Also important to note here is

the fact that despite having contradictory evidence, the justice system forged ahead with their

accusations and convictions.

Viewing wrongful convictions from a different angle can lead us to the 1981 case of Gary

Graham. Bobby Lambert was attacked when coming out of a speedway supermarket and when

he tried to resist, a gun was pointed at his head. Unfortunately, Bernadine Skillern (prosecutions

primary eyewitness) saw this incident and honked her car, which may have surprised the

criminal and led him to fatally shoot Bobby in the chest before running away. She followed the

murderer in her car and was able to physically describe him to the police, and although she

couldnt identify him by photo array, she identified him in a police line-up since he was the only

one there also from the photo array. It was Gary Graham. Gary had definitely had a criminal past


5/6

5

too, involving armed robbery and the abduction and rape of an older woman which had

eventually gotten him arrested. Concerning the murder of Bobby Lambert, Gary pled not guilty.

Under the Texas Penal Code, Gary was charged with capital murder with the aggravating

circumstance of robbery. The prosecutions case was mainly based on Bernadines testimony

and her distant view of the murderer. None of the other four witnesses identified Graham as the

murderer, two signed affidavits, certain Graham was not the one and furthermore, Grahams

physical appearance differed in important aspects from the descriptions provided by other

witnesses. Also a firearm expert revealed the killing bullet could not have been from Grahams

gun. Unfortunately, his lawyer did not interview or present these other witnesses during the trial.

Even Lamberts attorneys told Grahams counsel that he might have been killed for snitching

about the drug organization he had been involved with before he got in trouble with the law. The

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit realized that there was a lot of evidence not presented

to the State court, but both the State of Texas and the United State Supreme Court refused to hear

this evidentiary hearing. Also, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)

enacted in 1996 which subjects cases to a much higher threshold for federal review, had been

enacted by Congress in the interim, and thus the Fifth Circuit refused to review the decision by

the state court. Gary Graham was executed despite compelling evidence of his innocence and

evidence that he did not receive a fair trial. In Grahams case, as in an increasing number of other

cases, rigid thresholds for review and inflexible time limits for appeals, such as those imposed by

the AEDPA, enacted in 1996, lead to violations of constitutional protections and human trial.

The justice system especially in criminal cases is supposed to convict accused people on

evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, yet reading these last cases proves to us that nothing is

ever really as it seems. In most cases it is not intentional or evidence is found out too late, other


6/6

6

times it may be due to faulty witness accounts, or in my last example, insufficient legal help. The

end result is still disastrous. People get executed, lose their properties and respect in their

community or families get destroyed. Sometimes the most devastating results are the

psychological effects of either spending time in jail. People should not be misled into believing

that they would have a clean and fair trial by the government they trusted and believed in and

then be treated so wrongly.

what is a trial

Documents