Reiser - The Postscript
→ 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
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
The People of the State of California vs. Hans Reiser
Postscript
Hans Raiser will be sentenced to an indeterminate life prison sentence with a parole date far, away.
Bill DuBois’ most effective legal move at this point will be a modest one - a motion addressed to Judge Goodman, as the “thirteenth juror”, to reduce the conviction from first degree murder to second degree. Although granting such a motion is within the court’s discretion, I offer no opinion as to the merits or the likelihood of its success.
I would anticipate a defense motion for a new trial, and that it will be denied. We many learn from the defense motions, however, why the jury did not hear more about the mysterious Sean Sturgeon.
Paul Hora’s most effective argument was this - only the first line was borrowed or paraphrased and the rest was original:
“A man's actions are the mirror of a man’s mind. If he eats, it’s because he's hungry. If he sleeps, it's because he's tired. If he lies, it's because the truth is damaging. If he destroys and conceals evidence, it's because it can be used against him. If he covers up a crime, it's because he committed the crime. If he acts guilty, it’s because he is guilty. That’s what this evidence tells us.”
I have great confidence in the jury system and in a good jury’s almost uncanny ability to locate the truth in the fog of litigation and to detect a liar’s deceptions.
In the end, Hans Reiser was undone by hate. Not, as some have suggested, the jury’s hate for him (I doubt that was even the case) but his ill-concealed hate for his wife, Nina. This was a hatred so powerful that it leaked through and even warped the defense strategy in the case. In the end Hans’ hatred for his wife may have seduced Bill DuBois initially to outline the “Nina is evil” line of argument. That position was the ultimate undoing of the entire defense strategy, in my opinion; it was a “poison pill” that robbed the loveable platypus of all its droll charm, and drained the defense of its last shred of credibility.
Kudos to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Henry Lee and to Wired Magazine’s David Kravets: Their ongoing coverage of this case was indispensable to the rest of us, and to the public record of this very interesting and very aggravating trial.
JBG
Comments
Thanks. I agree that PH did a great job.
J
And kudos to you for your extensive analysis. I enjoyed it tremendously.
Hora did a fantastic job. He had help in the name of Hans Reiser.
Posted by: Mary | April 29, 2008 08:56 AM
U R Welcome.
J
And thanks to you for your expert analysis!
Posted by: Gary A. Hill | April 29, 2008 09:02 AM
HR may allege ineffective assistance of counsel ('IAC', as we call it) because of his bad relationship with the defense team. There is no "ineffective assistance of client", however! A defendant can't profit from the problems that he creates for himself.
J
Hello, Mr. Gaskill- If Hans appeals, can he claim ineffective counsel?
Posted by: Teresa | April 29, 2008 09:10 AM
Thank you.
As to Bill DB? Sanctions are always a possibility although DB may have acted in good faith, relying on very questionable legal advice. Ironically, the guilty verdict may help him avoid sanctions in that no harm to the prosecution case was done because of the disclosure delay he caused.
JBG
Just wanted to say to say thanks for all great commentary! Do you think anytihng will happen to Du Bois over the hard drives?
Posted by: Argel | April 29, 2008 10:09 AM
You are very welcome!
J
Thank you, Jay, for your insightful, illuminating, and always interesting analyses of this case. I never cease learning from your blog :)
Posted by: Maria | April 29, 2008 01:28 PM
The jury -- when filled with open minded, non-ideological members -- is not always a perfect fact finder, but then -- you and I aren't either! It is and will probably remain the very best "guilt-innocence determining" system possible in a free society.
JBG
Thank you for all your time and great conversations. You have my most sincere respect.
I want to expand on what you said:
"I have great confidence in the jury system and in a good jury’s almost uncanny ability to locate the truth in the fog of litigation and to detect a liar’s deceptions."
In case of OJ and Mary (forgot the last name - preacher's wife) also?
Or are you confident in cases when people are cleared of charges after long years in jail?
I think jury system isn't perfect and becoming more so in now days, when it is pretty hard to keep them isolated (unbiased) during trial.
I am still not sure on what happened on September 3rd, most likely he did kill her:( But I don't think that PH even came close on proving 1st degree murder.
Posted by: tm | April 29, 2008 04:22 PM
Juries are very good fact finders most of the time and they are better than all other tribunals - though imperfect. This jury saw HR up close and at length: All 12 concluded that -(a) Hans was a liar and (b) that he killed his wife. I wasn't there, but I can tell you that, just from the contents of HR;s testimony, he convicted himself. One juror's comments reflected a general impression, shared by Hans' lawyers, the judge and almost all courtroom observers. HR wasn't convicted by his arrogance alone, but it warped his perception of reality and played into the prosecution's theory of the case. He decided against sound advice to take the stand in the mistaken belief that he could 'explain everything'. He didn't.
JBG
And what makes you think that this particular jury -open minded, non-ideological members? One already said that they don’t like Hans because he is arrogant. Not particularly open minded comment.
When attorneys choose jury, they are using different criteria - they need people who are easy to convince, swing, manipulate and lead (kind of the same how presidential candidates choose their support base). And it is understandable why.
I am far from perfect, that is why I pray, that I will not be put into position to decide someone's fate. But trust me, bs that both PH and WBD preformed wouldn’t work on me. I suspect that I will fail selection if called for jury duty.
I hope that my opinions are not insulting in anyway, I just say what I think, and you sound like a person who is able to appreciate different opinions.
Regards,
Posted by: TM | April 30, 2008 02:45 PM