Second Opinion : COMMENT FROM OTHER MEDIA

LOS ANGELES SENTINEL

Is Judge Trying to Ensure Conviction in Denny Case?

Again, a Southern California judge appears to have cast aside any semblance of judicial integrity and added more flames to the burning issue of judicial manipulation of the legal process.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Ouderkirk (last) week made the rarest of moves by removing an African-American female juror from the deliberation process because, according to her fellow jurors, “she cannot comprehend anything we . . . (are) trying to accomplish.”

Virtually every African-American elected official and attorney polled by the Sentinel has accused Ouderkirk of “stacking the jury” for a predetermined outcome and allowing the jury majority to dictate who should be included in their ranks. Furthermore, they all agree that removing a juror for other than illness or blatant misconduct should be avoided.

The impression one gets from Ouderkirk’s bizarre exercise is that anyone (read: black person) serving jury duty who doesn’t agree with fellow jurors or has a different interpretation of the evidence presented is subject to be persona non grata by both peers as well as the judge.

Of course, this is not the way the American justice system is supposed to work. People are entitled to a fair trial before a jury of his or her peers.

Under normal circumstances, juries who remain deadlocked on one or more counts constitute a “hung jury.” But not in Ouderkirk’s courtroom; not in this case.

In fact, the removal of Juror No. 373 raises questions as to whether Ouderkirk is intentionally pulling out all the stops to ensure a conviction of Damian Williams and Henry Watson on 12 counts connected with alleged assaults on a number of motorists on April 29, 1992, including white trucker Reginald Denny.

The removed juror, No. 373, completed detailed questionnaires, answered psycho-social questions presented by the court, satisfied attorneys on both sides of the issue and was approved for the jury.

But that is not the end of it.

Juror No. 152, the panel’s lone white male juror, asked to be removed. And, what some may regard as sweet revenge, the next-to-last alternate juror left--a black man--was selected to replace him.

It doesn’t seem that these jurists--the Joyce Karlins, the John Ouderkirks, the John Davies--give a tinker’s damn that their wild-eyed decisions seem to emit a familiar racial odor.

This double-standard two-tier justice system must end.

The Sentinel is an African-American weekly published Thursdays in Los Angeles.

KOREA TIMES (English Edition)

In the Second Generation, a Native Tongue Is Lost

There are standard reactions I get from Koreans who discover I can’t speak Korean. One is confusion. Another is pity. “You’re a Korean, aren’t you?” they ask with sympathy. “Didn’t your parents teach you?”

There was a time when I blamed my mother and father for not educating me in the tongue I felt was rightfully mine; a time when I railed against the racist American society that made my family surrender its heritage and culture.

Perhaps it would’ve been easier to master Korean as a child, but nothing ever prevented me from learning it on my own.

A few years ago, I decided to lift the burden of ethnic shame I placed upon my parents’ shoulders and took a class in Korean conversation at the local city college. There were a few Anglos, some African-Americans, but the majority were second-generation Korean-Americans. Some were seeking a language that would enable them to communicate with their parents, while others simply wanted an easy grade. I learned little.

Lately, I’ve been making excuses for my procrastination. Should Americans of German ancestry learn German because it’s their ethnic duty? Do Irish-Americans feel an obligation to know Gaelic?

But these rationalizations ring hollow. I’ve always longed to know the sounds sent down to me through time, the words I’ve always heard but have never spoken.

Maybe tomorrow.

From a column by Dexter Kim, originally published in the National KAGRO (Korean American Grocers Assn.) Journal. Korea Times (English edition) is a biweekly published Wednesdays in Los Angeles.

THE IRISH TRIBUNE

The U.S. Is the Real Abuser of Political Asylum Law

A firestorm has raged concerning “abuse” of the asylum “system” of late. The real question is--who has abused the system, the applicants or the government?

Political asylum protects persons from individual threats that are intolerable to American values. That means persecution which jeopardizes life or liberty due to political, social or ethnic considerations.

Until a few years ago, the Immigration and Naturalization Service usually interviewed asylum applicants the same day of filing, and work authorization (allowing asylum applicants to be legally employed) was decided immediately.

Then the INS started to accept asylum applications without ruling on them. Work permits had to be issued because one can’t keep a person from living while sitting on his application. Street dealers soon made fast money selling completed asylum forms with standard claims, and the INS blindly issued thousands of work permits to match.

INS reaction to this new Frankenstein was to treat all asylums as frauds. Then agents started to “expedite” cases by calling them in for five-minute interviews. The paperwork couldn’t be done in five minutes, much less a serious interview.

The real problem is that U.S. airport inspections have never seriously tried to screen out criminals, regardless of any claim of asylum. The accused mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing was given a green card--entirely outside the asylum process--even though he was known to be a suspected terrorist, polygamist and convict. The agent involved just didn’t do the job and check the records. That’s not the exception, it’s the rule. Now the INS wants to have one inspector decide asylum cases at the airport.

California death penalty cases are automatically appealed to the Supreme Court. Shouldn’t we give asylees (sic) more than five minutes in front of an airport cop?

Who “abused” the “system,” those in front of the counter or those behind it? The INS has gotten in the habit of asking for new laws every time something comes up. What makes us think they will do any better with new laws than they have with the old ones?

From a column by immigration attorney John A. Quinn in the Irish Tribune, a monthly published in Canoga Park.