As Published On
→ The Out-Lawyer’s
Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All
contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright ©
2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission
to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for
personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost
always routinely given.]
Please
contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
Reiser resumes the witness stand on Monday, March 17, in
WAITING
FOR REISER – AT THE KNIFE’S EDGE
From the point of view of an outside observer, there comes a point in every criminal trial when the whole prosecution enterprise seems balanced on a knife’s edge, a forensic tipping point after which the case momentum will drive sharply to one side or the other. For the Han Reiser murder trial case, that knife’s edge is Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Hans Reiser’s own testimony will provide the tipping point, possibly with the help or hindrance of additional proof – like the DNA expert who was expected to testify last Thursday but did not.
A number of careful observers have concluded that the
underlying truth of the case is most likely that Hans killed Nina on
“I want to thank you for
providing analysis of the
Reiser case on your blog. We have excellent trial coverage from [Henery Lee] www.sfgate.com and
[David Kravets] Wired-on-line, but … you are
providing an important context for some of the events.
“I became aware of the Reiser
case because I am a professional free software programmer. I have never worked together with Reiser or
even met him, but I know people who have, and I could have easily encountered
him through the years. And although the
connection is a far stretch, it's probably as close as I ever came to a murder
case inmy life, and hopefully ever will (crossing my
fingers here).
“I was convinced that Hans
Reiser killed Nina on an impulse and hid her body very early in the trial, and
my opinion has not changed. Any explanation
of the circumstances of Nina’s disappearance [must] respond to three
established facts: (1) Nina disappeared suddenly, leaving behind most of her
possessions and abandoning her children and pet. (2) Hans Reiser destroyed potential evidence
and showed other signs of an extensive cover up (some of the evidence indicates
conspicuous behaviour even before he could learn that Nina was missing). (3) There is an utter lack of evidence for
alternative explanations. Any response
must address all three points at the same time, but the defense has only
attacked (1) and (2) individually, and did not address (3) at all.
“Further support against Hans
comes from his background, in particular his anti-feminist view of
relationships, and the contentious divorce proceedings. Its too sad to
repeat here.
“I should address the ‘geek
defense’, being a geek myself, and knowing many of them at a personal
level. The geek defense can of course
not explain conspicuous behaviour by Hans before he learned that Nina was missing
and that the police might track him. In
particular, if he removed the battery from his cell phone, showed extraordinary
tiredness, and behaved abnormally when he brought his children to the school on
Monday, that is all before he learned from other sources that Nina was missing,
and the geek defense does not apply.
“Second, although geeks behave different from non-geeks, they still behave quite predictably. I can understand why Hans-the-geek would trash his hard drive when under police investigation. I can not understand why Hans-the-geek would try to hide the car he was using. I can even understand why he would throw away a seat to make the car more comfortable, but I can not understand why he would soak the floorboard with water.
“When a geek decides to *clean*,
something is seriously wrong!
“There are open questions, of
course. ….
“I am not part of the jury. I don’t need to be convinced beyond
reasonable doubt, and I don’t have access to most of the evidence and other
documents in the trial anyway. Thus, I
can afford the luxury of basing my opinion on incomplete evidence, and it seems
more than reasonable to think that Hans killed Nina and hid her remains.”
A local civil attorney friend of mind, someone with absolutely no axe to grind in this case, echoed the same analysis, adding – I don’t know what I’d do if I were on that jury.’
Accountability for a decision like this wonderfully concentrates the mind. Here is the fulcrum of the tipping point: Reasonable doubt can be a path to evade accountability, after all who can ever challenge the juror who says, “It just wasn’t enough” but means “I didn’t want the responsibility”. But reasonable doubt can also be a ratification of a conscientiously held view – i.e., that “Reiser really might not have done it”. And reasonable doubt can mark the line between those nagging doubts that dog all our important decisions (as the judge will instruct, “everything in human affairs is subject to some possible or imaginary doubt”), and that robust common sense that says, nah, it is just not reasonable to think that all this evidence just happened to encircle an innocent, angry husband – i.e., “There are just too many incriminating circumstances and no other reasonable alternative theory with any actual support in the evidence”.
Now the defense may actually help the prosecution in making the sale (1) by stressing the not-believable theory that Nina is still alive somewhere, somehow having contrived this as a kind of frame-up; and/or (2) when Hans appears deceptive in his testimony.
That’s why calling Hans as a witness was rolling the dice. Any juror who actually believes him must acquit, but the juror who thinks he his trying to deceive will have no problem voting to convict.
When both sides have rested, I will post a guide to the arguments.
JBG