Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the American Justice System: Between Brutality and Fairness

In his blog, Le Plouc showed himself to be skeptical about the American justice system and the war it provokes between the prosecution and the defense. Today he must underline another of its features, which, by the way takes away none of her intrinsic brutality — fairness.

Even if the prosecution acts during the first days of the procedure like a Patton tank demolishing everything in its path, the fact remains nonetheless that it is constrained to respect certain principles.

One amongst these will perhaps benefit Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The District Attorney (prosecutor in charge of supporting the prosecution) Cyrus Vance Jr. should have found any leads placing in doubt the reliability of the maid who has accused DSK of rape. In fact, the prosecution has the obligation to convey to the jury all the findings of the investigation, including those exonerating the accused. If the prosecutor keeps any cards up his sleeve, he will lose the game, with the trial being invalidated.

The role of the prosecutor is to convince the jury — beyond “all reasonable doubt” — that the evidence he has collected demonstrates the guilt of the accused. In any case, in the state of New York, if any of the 23 jurors doubt the guilt of the accused, he will be acquitted. The prosecution must therefore present itself to the court with a case as “concrete” as the Empire State Building and avoid any dubious statements or plaintiffs. The post of district attorney being popularly elected, this magistrate can not possibly accumulate defeats in front of the jury as they would leave a very bad impression.

In the DSK affair, the prosecutor Vance will increase the provision of evidence in order to avoid being blown up by the talented and very expensive Benjamin Brafman, Strauss-Kahn’s defense attorney, in open court, which could cost him his reelection. If the plaintiff presents any weakness in her personality or story, then it will be better to reduce the breadth of the accusation and to compromise with the defense.

This “commitment to fairness” — is it always respected? There were cases where police from one American state withheld evidence that they had obtained, ending in a verdict stained by judicial error. In the great majority of cases of this type, however, the fault lies with a defense lawyer lacking the vigour, talent or motivation to accomplish his job in a satisfactory manner. Thus, one finds inequality fostered by the American judicial proceedings. The poor who cannot pay the fees of a good defense lawyer are at far greater risk than others of falling into the trap of judicial error.

“You will be made either guilty or innocent by a court depending on whether you are poor or powerful.” Since the time of La Fontaine nothing has changed under the hazy light of justice.