I respectfully dissent

Some are calling the guilty of manslaughter verdict in the Killens case a compromise verdict. At least one juror said the prosecution did not present enough evidence for a murder conviction:

Jurors said the evidence fell short of what they needed to convict Killen of murder, the charge prosecutors sought. “I should say I heard a number of very emotional statements from some of the white jurors,” said Warren Paprocki, 54, a white juror. “They had tears in their eyes, saying that if they could just have better evidence in the case that they would have convicted him of murder in a minute. Our consensus was the state did not produce a strong enough case.” (TheDay.com)

In many states manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human carried out without malice. (The precise definition depends on each state's law). Typical examples of manslaughter are:

Heat of passion cases: killing committed right after catching a spouse in the act of adultery (or other provocation) or using excessive force in what would otherwise be self-defense situation (called "imperfect self-defense"). In N.C. this is called voluntary manslaughter.
A killing that occurs in the course of an intentional or reckless violation of a law designed to protect life or limb. En example might be running over a pedestrian while driving too fast or not keeping a proper lookout, or accidentally shooting and killing someone while cleaning a gun. In N.C. this is called involuntary manslaughter.

It is hard for me to understand how the murders of the civil rights workers fit the manslaughter mold. They were pulled over for speeding, jailed, released and then intercepted by a mob that shot them and arranged for a bulldozer to bury the bodies in a dam. How do those facts show a provocation or careless accident? If this were a bench trial with a judge determined to stick to the law, I think a manslaughter ruling would be impossible.

Like any compromise verdict everyone is somewhat dissatisfied.

To Nettie Cox, the first black to run for mayor in Philadelphia, the verdict was an affront. “Manslaughter,” she said, putting her hands to her temples. “I just can't absorb manslaughter.” But two jurors interviewed said there was not enough evidence that Killen, who was accused of orchestrating the killings and recruiting the mob that carried out the job, had intended for the three men to die. (TheDay.com)

Compromise is a fact of life for criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and courts. Charge reductions are our stock in trade. I recently had to swallow hard on one of my cases. The client was at the scene of a crime but the evidence of his actual involvement was weak bordering on non-existent. I saw the case as potentially winnable. A conviction meant a sentence of 5 years or more. My advice was take your chances. The Friday before trial, I get a new plea offer: time served (he had been in jail for about a year). That offer was really too good to refuse, when a trial held the possibilty of a 5-year sentence. We pled out.

It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, the comprise may have resulted in a felony conviction for an innocent man. That is not a result I should be comfortable with.

In the very big picture, it is probably a good thing that a jury compromise meant Killens got convicted of something. He is almost certain to die in prison But if he participated in the killings he is a murderer, not a manslaughterer. It is a shame we could not call it like it was.

A comment:

Killen's convition wasn't a compromise: it was a cop-out. If they didn't have the facts and the interpretation of the facts to support a murder conviction, they should have found him not guilty. What they did -- if they did indeed believe the state didn't make its case -- is reprehensible. To avoid the political fallout of letting him go, they compromised the integrity of the justice system, and undermined what little faith there is for it out here in society at large.

Prove a crime has been committed; impassively find the culprit; and prove to a reasonable certainty to a jury of average citizens that that person committed that crime. With justice, on the principle tenets of the system, there can be no compromise.

Compromise within the system -- bargaining and so forth -- is fine to a reasonable (and practical) degree. To keep the wheels of justice spinning, it's necessary and expected.

There are, however, certain areas where it is intolerable. Prosecuting a person that the State does not believe to have committed a crime to satisfy the public's lust for a conviction is just one of them.

This doesn't rise to that level, as I'm sure the prosecution fervently believed Mr. Killen orchestrated the murders of those civil rights advocates, but it doesn't fall far enough from the mark to be beneath contempt.

For closure, racial conciliation, civic redemption or some combination of the three, the citizens of Neshoba County, Mississippi convicted a man they felt was innocent of the charges brought against him by the state. That's contemptible -- more contemptible than letting him go free.

No one should be celebrating this outcome.

Skelly pointed me to the story about the feud between the Durham County Public Defender and the child support enforcers in the Department of Social Services. In North Carolina child support delinquents who can't afford to hire attorneys are entitled to court-appointed counsel, if they are facing jail because of non-payment. I used to do some of that, but I hated it so much I quit.

From the defense side the cases are very frustrating. The client usually does not think he could possibly owe as much as child support enforcement is asking for, but invariably he has no receipts or any records of payments he made. Often support orders are entered and then modified numerous times so it is difficult to know exactly how much was owed. When a lawyer requests evidence to support the amounts claimed, the department usually provides a computer printout that it generated. Judges hate these cases and usually try to rush them though.

The last straw for me was when I learned that often delinquents asked for an attorney because it guaranteed their case would be continued. This meant I wasted an hour or so checking into the case and appearing on the court date just so the client could no-show.

Getting back to the story it is hard for me to see how it is unreasonable to request documentation of amounts owed.

The request for $10,000 in sanctions was whittled to $58.

In the abstract, jury service is a vital participation in direct democracy. However in reality being summoned to serve as a potential juror has all the charm of waiting in line outside a Soviet-era state store for a roll of toilet paper.
I've served on a jury once and spoken to a lot jurors after trial and I've only met one who did not enjoy serving on a jury. The process of being called as a juror can be hellish. First the summons calling you to participate in democracy comes in a carbon-paper three-part form full of bureaucratese that has all majesty of a water bill. There will be bold-print warning you of arrest if you fail to show up. You will be one of the first people to arrive at the courthouse, for the convenience of court officials you are directed to arrive early. That way we know you will be already there when things actually get under way around 10 a.m. Because responsibility for the court system is spread among judges, clerks, the prosecutor, and occasionally private attorneys, it is woefully inefficient. I've learned that for every hour one spends in the court system actually getting something accomplished, a minimum of two is utterly wasted.
If you are selected to serve it can be pretty interesting. Only a jury can decide if a crime was committed. In a civil case only the jury determines what the truth is. In almost every other interaction with government, some official is imposing a dictate on you. When you vote, you are one voice among thousands or millions. On a jury, you are one voice in twelve and because the verdict must be unanimous your voice is loud and clear.

NPR has a series on juries.