By Perly Viasmensky
The majority of law-abiding citizens innocently still believe in the justice system, and when they find themselves facing a situation in a court of law, they also believe in the nonsense of having a “jury of their peers” without realizing that some of those “peers” can be their worst enemies.
What do they know about those 12 people sitting in the jury box? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Some of them have been brainwashed by the prosecutors, others are related to or are friends of law enforcement agents, who, even if they claim they can be fair in their judgments, are still stubborn in their decisions according to the mentality of law enforcement agents and don’t even pay attention to the evidence presented in court. Many others neglect to acknowledge their relationship to law enforcement agents connected to the case.
Many others (and believe me you’d be surprised) are falling asleep during the whole trial–right in front of the judge’s eyes–bored because the only reason they are sitting in that jury box is because they received a subpoena and they have no other choice; besides, the compensation they receive for serving as a juror is lousy. Those are the ones waiting for other jurors to make a decision and they’ll just go along with the rest.
We cannot forget the frustrated jurors’ wives missing “action” at home and they have the audacity to contact the out-of-state defense attorney proposing dinner and “something else” when he comes back to town.
If the attorney rejects the proposal, there is no question that the woman is going to go against the attorney’s client.
The sad part of all of this is that the judge and the prosecutor are both well aware of the indiscretion of that juror and goes along with it. Of course, it is always for the benefit of the prosecutor.
Because those “jurors of your peers,” lots of innocent people have been sent to prison.
What is ironic and sarcastic is that those same prosecutors who sent innocent people to prison leave the District Attorney’s office to become defense attorneys, charging an arm and a leg to defend a defendant for the same crime for which they previously sent an innocent person to prison.
If I was going to name all the innocent people paying for a crime they never committed in the state of Nevada alone, I wouldn’t have enough pages and ink to complete the list.
Does anybody remember the case of Robert Hayes (this is a name I will never forget) who in 1992 was wrongfully accused of molesting his eight-year-old daughter? That man spent 17 years of his life in prison for a crime he never committed. Why did that happen? Because a Deputy District Attorney desperately wanting to win a case refused to listen to the explanation of the little girl who claimed over and over that her father never touched her. I could mention the name of that deputy district attorney (I’m sure many people know who he is) but he is so insignificant that it is not even worth mentioning him.
You have probably read in the pages of this newspaper about the case of Manuel Menendez, accused of molesting the granddaughter of his wife and was sent to prison.
When the mother of the little girl and supposed victim of the molestation came back to Las Vegas and learned of the incident, a Motion for a new trial was filed, but the prosecutors hysterically had a tantrum in the courtroom of Judge Jim Bixler demanding (not asking the judge, but demanding) that it not be granted. In the end, Judge Bixler bowed to the wishes and commands of the prosecutors and sent an innocent man back to prison to finish a sentence for a crime he never committed.
There is also the case of an innocent man whose DNA case proves he is totally innocent, but the district attorney’s office presented the testimony of a nurse whose credentials were very…shady…to say the least.
It is well known that for prosecutors every case becomes personal and I wonder how personal a case is to a deputy district attorney who is well aware that evidence is not directed to the accused. Is it personal because that prosecutor dislikes black men? Is it personal because the prosecutor would like to interact with a young foreign woman who was brought back to the states at the expense of taxpayers?
Prosecutors need to understand that their duty is to bring justice to the case, not to destroy lives.