FindLaw | Legal News & Information
Reviewed by Timothy Walton November 8, 2000
How Do You Punish A Man With Nothing To Lose? The killer in this week's episode is serving a life sentence for murder. He has killed repeatedly and has no possibility of parole. His victim was also a criminal, with a record that makes his killer look like a choirboy. The murder takes place at Riker's Island, the New York City jail where defendants awaiting trial or other court hearings are held. In fact, the victim was there only for a brief stay, and the two men would not have come into contact with one another were it not for a bizarre string of coincidences. When the prosecutors begin to question how the killer knew that his victim would be nearby, they discover that someone else close to the action may have had a motive for wanting the victim dead. Many of the coincidences appeared to center around one particular prison guard who had escorted the killer from his cell to the visiting room where the victim happened to be. In fact, another inmate claims that the fight in the visiting room started because the guard pushed him into a much bigger prisoner. And a little investigation by Abby (Angie Harmon) reveals that this prison guard happens to be involved with another prison guard who was raped by the murder victim! Although revenge often seems to be the motive behind murder for hire, evidence to prove the contract is scant, and the hired killer is already serving a life sentence, so he has little reason to cooperate. But then Jack (Sam Waterston) correctly guesses the terms of the contract hit: the killer wants his son (also serving time in New York) transferred to a different facility. But the guard has not had an opportunity to make good yet on his promise, so Jack promises the killer that he will give him what he wants in exchange for testimony against the guard. How would they punish the guy anyway? Adding more years to a life sentence with no parole is beyond the powers of the state. Alas, it is not so easy to prosecute a prison guard. The guard doesn't even show up for his own arraignment, because, in a show of solidarity, the other guards suddenly have become sticklers for details and, citing minor errors in paperwork, are refusing to deliver any defendants to the court. Obviously, this was a tactic to embarrass the DA and make it more difficult and burdensome to prosecute the prison guard defendant. But the bigger problem is the trial itself: there is little evidence to show that the guard hired the killer. The corroboration of the killer's testimony comes from another convict. The rest of the evidence is circumstantial. When the defendant prison guard takes the stand and says, essentially, "I wanted to kill the rapist, but I didn't," I believed him and I knew the jury would as well. Everybody hates to lose, but Jack seemed to think that the jury acquitted on the basis of the victim's character. I don't think that was the case at all. The prosecution had a terrible case and there was enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through. This time, the truck was a paddy wagon.
Timothy Walton is an attorney licensed in California. He has been watching "Law and Order" for many years. |
|||
