The L. A. Times did something rare today. They actually fleshed out a good story from court records and exhibits. The story provides a rare inside view on the methods of disgraced former Hollywood PI, Anthony Pellicano.This information and audio recordings were obtained from the publicly available items that involve the accused "limousine rapist" John Gordon and his 1998 trial. That defendant was acquitted. Too many reporters just don’t know how to cover a court related story. This story is a good learning vehicle for journalists.
Most or all of the things Pellicano did here were lawful and proper. There is a hint that Pellicano crossed the line by obtaining criminal background information on the alleged victims. The fact is, the most important thing any private investigator can do is learn about the people who make serious allegations against an accused client. For a PI not to carefully examine the backgrounds, habits and prior allegations involving a victim is unforgivable malpractice.
The reality under our system of justice is that people designated as victims and witnesses on any side of any criminal case can fully expect that their past will be found and exposed in a public forum. That’s always what happens unless the defendant avoids everything with an early guilty plea.
Unlike the trial of Saddam Hussein, in America the victims or witnesses are not, nor should be concealed from the view of the public or defendant and have their names kept secret.
Read the story here and listen to the attached audio files.
8 comments:
It just nor fair that a victim gets their whole lives examined by strangers.
It's like getting victimized twice!
Victims are not always victims!
Nobody holds a gun to your head making you accuse people of crimes and go to court against anyone.
Just be careful to have you own house in order before you dial 911.
I don't get victimized! I don't call 911, I reach for my gun!
He did break the law... victims of sexual assault/abuse identities are protected by law.
What a country we live in, criminals/'defendants' past history of offenses that could be relevant to a trial is blocked because we wouldn't want the jury to be swayed by past actions... but yet victims should have their past 'habits' scruitinized? INSANE.
1. Sexual assault victims name are not hidden in a criminal case. The victims cannot come to court wearing hoods and alike to “protect” their identity even if they are children. It would violate the Fifth Amendment right to confront witnesses against the accused.
It may be a wise and kind policy of some news organizations not to publish those names.
2. The victims are not on trial and don’t have life or liberty at stake. The accused are on trial and due process (again the Fifth Amendment) gives any defendant the right to examine any issues related to a victim or witness that could give rise to a false allegation.
That means all victim’s backgrounds are fair game for investigation by the accused, his investigator and attorney. Not all issues raised by the defense are deemed by trial judges to be relevant for a jury to hear.
Ms anonymous, I’m sorry for you if you were sexually assaulted. Get yourself some training and a gun so it never happens again.
In the mean time, may I suggest moving to another country were there is no freedom or Bill of Rights to protect people accused of crime to the right of a fair trial?
Rape takes ones life and liberty away forever. To imply that victims do not have as much on the line and it is the defendant we should pamper with rights to try and ensure you find enough smoke and mirrors to muster doubt in a jury is not justice for anyone.
When victims rights are more protected you'll see less serial rapists and child molesters loose.
Oh Boy! Here we go! More “Victim’s Rights” drivel! Save that trash for the worthless harpie, Nancy Grace.
I don’t make light of crime or victimization but I defend the Constitutional protections that Americans have fought and died over.
The rights of the accused must take precedence over the rights of any “victim” witness. There is no real victim until AFTER the conviction of an accused suspect. Most other countries don't care about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps the “victims” should go live there.
I say “victims” should aid in the prosecution and get on with their lives. If they have too much baggage in their personal lives to aid in prosecution then don’t even call 911.
I'll advocate armed self-defense as a more positive way to avoid victimization.
What does convicting any suspect do for a victim? What about the suspects that get away and are never caught?
Does convicting a rapist somehow erase the rape?
When you accuse, you also invite total inspection of your life and secrets.
Post a Comment