‘Sentencing the Wrong Man to Die’

I read with interest your article on the American legal system. Whether by accident or design, it is sadly ironic that this should be published only two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Georgia death-penalty practices. The court ruling and the facts relating to Joseph Green Brown’s conviction suggest a potential problem in the way our legal system arrives at “justice.”

Proponents of the adversary system, Prosecutor Robert Bonanno included, insist that it works. In theory, quite possibly, it does work. One can assume that attorneys, aligned with their clients, present their cases in direct opposition to each other before impartial decision-makers. These decision-makers, who have not participated in the search for facts, and have no personal interest in the outcome, arrive at a just decision.

However, as the Brown case illustrates, in actual practice the adversary theory cannot always be expected to live up to this ideal. Attorneys have different styles and abilities. More powerful, aggressive, and experienced attorneys may be more skilled at properly presenting evidence, questioning witnesses, and inducing favorable attitudes among the jury. In short, the more skillful attorney has a better chance of winning the case.

This is an inherent, even accepted, part of the American legal system. The problem, however, does not lie in these differences among attorneys. The problem lies in access to these attorneys.

Simply stated, in the United States wealth buys a better shot at “justice.”

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s Georgia death-penalty case, stated that “despite these imperfections our consistent rule has been that constitutional guarantees are met.” However, the case of Joseph Green Brown suggests that these guarantees may be attached to a large price tag.

RANDALL CHOCO

Santa Ana