letter to the editor

Mind-clearing trial justice

Posted 4/10/24

In a dizzying world sometimes cluttered by misdirection, there is a refreshing, atmospheric-cleansing quality to the courtroom principle of “proof.” Concepts such as “facts of the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in
letter to the editor

Mind-clearing trial justice

Posted

In a dizzying world sometimes cluttered by misdirection, there is a refreshing, atmospheric-cleansing quality to the courtroom principle of “proof.” Concepts such as “facts of the case” (built on), “evidence” (that is), “admissible to the court under the rules of law,” all overwhelmingly ensure that the proceedings most likely result in a just and reasonable outcome. 

Is the outcome foolproof? No. But with a fair judge presiding before a jury of our peers, the pursuit of justice—with an evidence-based intent—is simply the best that we can do.

What is evidence? Those students who study law find out in a technically demanding year-long course. “People are saying,” “Somebody told me” or “I read it on a media site” are rarely ever mentioned as significant evidentiary sources. 

The fact that such hearsay is generally considered inadmissible in court severely restricts the contributions of social media platform commentary, regardless of the celebrity or popularity of the source. We do not care about the authority of the origin of unsubstantiated statements; they are neither relevant nor worthy, or even allowed consideration regarding the formulation of a just and lawful trial outcome. 

Generally, in courtroom testimony, you will not find bloated overstatements, rumors and outright lies misrepresented by witnesses as facts. After all, each witness must swear not to perjure themself.

Of course, lawyers, as is their fiduciary duty, will try to construct a compelling case that casts their client in the best possible light. 

Of course, judges are required to enforce the trial rules and order according to what is allowed using their particular interpretation of the law. All of this results in a mind-clearing environment that avoids a great deal of the static and noise that can interfere with everyone’s cognitive clarity. 

Ultimately, it is the deliberations of peers—people like you and me—that will determine the justness of the final outcome. If we can continue to generally trust each other as citizens, this approach to the pursuit of justice will continue to be among the finest practiced anywhere.  

John Pace
Honesdale, PA

letter to the editor, trial, justice

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here