| 07/24/2007 |
| A chance to do justice |
|
We know that the law and justice are two different things.
The philosopher David Hume once warned that justice should be a
"cool virtue," and not a matter of emotion.We try to be detached and analytic. But we feel the pull toward justice deep in our guts. And what do we understand by the word "justice"? Several things: That the guilty will be punished. That the innocent will be exonerated. That the truth will eventually become clear. That things will be done in a fair way, despite the various emotions of those involved. Justice can surely be elusive, but if we cease to believe in it, we are lost. These are some of the things the great movie "To Kill a Mockingbird" is about. These are some of the things the case of Richard Lapointe is about. Lapointe is a brain-damaged man who worked as a dishwasher in Manchester. In 1992 he was convicted of the rape and murder of his wife's grandmother, which occurred in 1987. Lapointe was convicted largely on the basis of his own confession. Actually, he made three confessions, and they do not match up with each other. He made them after more than nine hours of relentless police interrogation. Lapointe was not only not mentally strong (he is what most people would see as moderately mentally retarded), but he was enamored of police officers and eager to please his interrogators. He also had no lawyer present during the interrogations. Nor were the sessions taped. (Lapointe's case has persuaded many in and around Connecticut's legal justice system that all confessions should be taped. For, as we also know from state history, and even TV, a confession may be bogus, just as an eyewitness may be.) Lapointe has new lawyers who are asking for a new trial. This is the second time Lapointe has asked for a new trial. He has been in jail for 15 years of a 60-year-plus-life-without-parole sentence. There is a very good possibility he will die in prison. There is also a possibility that he did not commit murder. Not only do his confessions not add up, but an alibi provided by Lapointe's now former wife makes it hard to fathom how he could have committed the crime. She says he was with her the whole night, except for a brief period in which Lapointe walked the family dog. Lapointe would have to have left home, assaulted his wife's grandmother, killed her, set fire to her apartment, and returned home in the space of roughly 20 minutes. Unless Lapointe's former wife was lying during her 1989 police interrogation when she accounted for his whereabouts on the night of the murder. And unless she continues to lie today, for she repeated her story in court last week. The credibility of the former Mrs. Lapointe could have been mulled by a jury, but they never got the chance. Lapointe's original lawyers never called her to testify in the 1992 trial. No jury fails to notice when the spouse of the accused does not take the stand. Finally, Lapointe's new lawyers say there is contradictory DNA evidence. They say one bit of DNA found on a pair of men's gloves at the scene is that of someone other than Lapointe. Why was Lapointe's DNA there? Well, Lapointe was in regular contact with his grandmother-in-law and was the person who called 911 on the night of the killing. His wife dispatched him to investigate when her sister could not reach her grandmother by phone - after the time in which, theoretically, the murder took place. To most of us, all of this adds up to reasonable doubt; doubt that due process was served; doubt that justice was done. Doubt is not the same as certitude, of course. Many professionals deeply involved in this case at the time of Lapointe's trial and conviction continue to believe, for a number of reasons, that Lapointe is guilty. It is certainly possible that he is. But it is now clear that the defense presented at Lapointe's trial was less than what he was constitutionally entitled to receive, and it is simply just for there to be a new trial. Superior Court Judge Stanley T. Fuger, who is hearing the request for a new trial, has a reputation as a "careful" judge. He has an opportunity to take as much care with the spirit as the letter of the law in this case. He has a chance to bend the arc toward justice. |