Since this article ran in the Bay State Banner, things have taken a turn for the worse for Thomas. After testifying under the threat of jail, he relocated out of state amid concerns for his safety.Shortly after he moved, the defendant in the case, on trial for shooting someone in the head and nearly killing him, was found not guilty, meaning that in the end 18-year-old Thomas gave up living near his friends, family, girlfriend, school, sports teams and summer job for nothing.
And not surprisingly, it's a good thing he did move away because the defendant was seen in the neighborhood shortly after the verdict.
In the end, Thomas found a job and it appears that this move will work out for him in the long run. But the big picture here raises serious concerns.
Everyone that knows Thomas in the neighborhood, from peers to relatives and friends -- and we are talking over 100 people here -- has heard about what happened to him after he testified. They now know that if they testify in a case they will have to give up everything important to them here and move away.
As a result of this case, there are now at least one hundred people that will never ever step forward if they see a shooting or have information that could help the police. And given that there are hundreds of shooting cases just like this one year after year, the number of people that feel this way is growing.
When law-abiding residents that witness crimes must choose between coming forward and giving up life as they know it, it is an indication that we are failing as a society.
2 comments:
Why wasn't the testimony of an eye witness enough to convince the jury to convict?
Would "Thomas" had to have moved away even if the defendant were convicted?
Unfortunately, juries sometimes do crazy things. On a number of occasions, and most prosecutors can probably say the same, I have seen juries come back guilty on weak cases and not guilty on much stronger cases. It only takes one or two people on a jury to tank a good case.
From what I am told, and this is only speculation because I was not present in the jury room, the prosecution put on a very solid case and the jury deliberated for days, nevertheless remaining deadlocked because of holdout jurors.
In the end, and again this is purely conjecture, but what often happens in these situations, the remaining jurors, with jobs and families and lives to get back to, got worn down and erred on the side of reasonable doubt.
Had this been a homicide, or a more serious injury, the result might have been different.
Relocation would have occurred either way because the defendant has family and friends that regularly frequent the area.
Post a Comment