A system better than any other …

Dear Editor:
I just read Brian Jarvis’ Dec. 14 column regarding the Anthony Woods trial. His observations were well taken and appreciated. With the exception of his disapproval for the folks from Marion County, I would agree with his assessments and most of his conclusions.

However, I did want to ask you to consider another perspective. While the criminal justice system might be considered a crap shoot, as you say, you have to also remember that it is a process. This process, and the rules that guide us through, are well thought out. To get to where we are today, we began with the English common law. Unfortunately, that common law gave the common man no real protection from the Crown. As a result, our Constitution, with its amendments, addressed those problems and gave us added protections. This was intended as a buffering layer between the Crown (government) and the citizenry. Legislative statutes have since been passed which define specific crimes and, yes, even provide additional protections for defendants. The courts are constantly tweaking the system as well. The law is fluid and is subject to change in any given case. This is a necessary evil.

Why is that relevant today? Imagine if these crimes had occurred as recently as 50 years ago. Same location. Same victims. Same defendant. Could this defendant have received a fair trial? Would any women or people of color been allowed to sit on that jury? Without an indigent defense system, would the defendant have had counsel to investigate and challenge the evidence against him?

The answers to those questions, in our past, quite likely would have been “No.”

So, what’s my point? It is that this system has evolved over time and it continues to evolve – hopefully, for the better. Even at that, it is still imperfect. Indeed, the jurors chosen for both trials of this case all said that they could be fair and impartial. I have no doubt that each believed that they could. Be that as it may, each obviously did not agree with the other. So, how could that be? I think that the answer is simple: We all have our own beliefs, fears and prejudices that affect the way that we perceive and react to things. We carry those individual traits with us and rely on them for every decision we make every day of our lives. Because of this, no one has the ability to know for a certainty what any particular juror may think, believe or feel about the facts of a particular case. We can only wait to see.

Had you been chosen as a juror in this case and charged with determining whether a man should be put to death, before you made that decision, would you not want to be assured that a meaningful, even if “tired” challenge had been made to the State’s case?

It is a process. Ever-changing and still imperfect, yet, it is better than any other that exists in the world today.

Sincerely,
Rick Hoefer
Attorney-at-Law
Florence, S.C.

Editor’s note: Mr. Hoefer was part of Anthony Woods’ court-appointed legal defense team.