|
|
|
() The OJ case has just gone through a "preliminary hearing" or "preliminary examination." It is not a trial. It is one of the steps that eventually leads up to trial, though.
The purpose of the preliminary examination is fairly simple. Although the Constitution does not require it, I think most - if not all - states have it in some form.
The state [in theory, the government you and I have formed] recognizes that defending against a criminal charge is a substantial burden, and people should not have to devote time, emotion and money to defending charges brought on a whim. The preliminary exam (the name can vary in different states) is designed to determine whether there is probably cause to send a case to trial and force the defendant to endure the burden of defense.
The prosecutor's obligation at a preliminary examination is simple and, in legitimate cases, easily met. He or she must present proof that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it. Proof of each element of the offense must be presented. Circumstantial evidence can be used - which is particularly important when dealing with "state of mind" elements of offenses (such as intent to murder, etc.).
As long as the prosecutor presents sufficient proof, the case procedes toward trial.
It does not matter what the defendant says (the defendant is not obligated to say anything), or even if the defendant presents witnesses to contradict the prosecutor's witnesses. As long as the prosecutor's proofs show each element of the offense, the court is obligated to keep the case alive. Some people have trouble understanding this, because they naturally want to examine the credibility of the witnesses. But for purposes of a preliminary exam, consider this mathematical approach: Suppose a crime has 4 elements, each worth 1 point. Suppose furhter that you can only add points - there is no subtraction allowed. If you add up to 4 points, it does not matter how much defense witnesses or even holes in the prosecution witnesses' testimony might detract from the strength of the case. Even if if detracts, you cannot subtract (apologies to the late Johnnie Cochrane). Thus, the judge is not allowed to examine witness credibility or holes in the case, as long as the 4 elements add up. Holes or doubts are properly decided by a jury. [exception: if the prosecution witness is so unbelievable that no reasonable jury could believe him, a judge at the preliminary exam could find that the prosecutor has failed to prove his or her case. This is exceedingly rare.]
As Travis points out, the preliminary exam presents an opportunity for the defense to learn more about the strength and weaknesses of the prosecutor's case. The defense does not have an automatic right to question witnesses before trial, but if they testify in a preliminary exam, the defense at least has an opportunity to probe the witnesses' testimony, biases, etc., to some degree. Even though the witness only has to testify about the bare elements of the offense, most judges allow the defense some latitude to "test" the witnesses' knowledge and assess their demeanor on the stand. Why would a judge do this, since it takes longer? Because if the defense sees that the case is strong, it is more likely to engage in plea negotiations and avoid a lengthier trial.
So, despite questions about whether OJ knew about or saw guns, there was enough circumstantial evidence to supply the necessary elements (such as the quote "bring heat," and one witness said guns were out in the open and would have been visible to OJ). The judge made the right call, but it wasn't a tough call. In fact, in some states this call is so easy that it is delegated to magistrates, who are unelected employees of the court who handle many of the more routine judicial functions.
Class, please read chapters 17 through 19 for tomorrow. You are dismissed.
|
|
