An American Tragedy

Here are some more observations on this case. I don’t know about some of the finer points of the law, but I do know the difference between right and wrong. I had always thought that legal was synonymous with honor and justice. This case was a real eye opener. To those involved with this case legal has nothing to do with justice. It was all about winning and using any means fair or foul appeared to be acceptable.

Before the start of the trial, the rules were apparently set by the judge and two attorneys. The accuser would be allowed to have several people testify that they believed her after becoming acquainted with her in a few minutes to an hour interview. The accused would not be allowed to have anyone testify that she was known to lie even though his witnesses had known her for prolonged periods of weeks or years and knew her well.

A request to have a unanimous verdict in this case was denied by this judge. To convict a person requiring a 7-11 year prison sentence, a unanimous verdict is required. In this case the prosecution asked for a death in prison sentence of 50 years, but the judge decided a 10-2 jury verdict was fair.

The defense attorney was appointed by the court and paid by our taxes. Her defense was so basically non-existent that most any layman could recognize it. To any honorable attorney her performance should be a professional embarrassment. In my opinion her conduct should result in her being sued for malpractice. She should also be considered for disbarment or at the very least censure. Instead our governor appointed her to be a new circuit court judge!

 In his closing statement before he sentenced Keith McMullin to 25 years, this judge insulted the intelligence of all of us in the court room by praising the professionalism of the attorneys involved in this case. He apparently did not recognize that the defense attorney had presented no defense and appeared clueless before the jury. Remember this judge also did not think it important that the jury could not hear the two most crucial witnesses in this case. He allowed the prosecutor to present witnesses whose only role was to state they believed the accuser. He also allowed the prosecuting attorney to have the last word in her closing statement where she lied about the whole hymen business being a myth. He apparently agrees with the premise that accusation of sexual assault means you are guilty unless you can somehow prove your innocence while not allowing you to present any witnesses. It appears to me that all these factors are strong evidence that he is not fit to sit on the bench.

Richard H Oehler, MD

Oehlerdick31@gmail.com

Freedomforkeith.blogspot.com