Denny Verdicts

* I was disappointed in reading the remarks concerning the Denny verdicts from Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren (Oct. 27). I hope he knew that the trial judge, a fair-minded judicial officer, admonished the jury that they were to consider only the evidence produced in court and were not to be influenced by any outside pressure.

I hope he knew that the two outstanding prosecutors, Janet Moore and Larry Morrison, participated in the jury selection process and were satisfied with the makeup of the jury. I hope he knew that the foreperson, No. 431, stated that all 12 jurors decided the charges based upon the evidence and the law. She further stated that all 12 jurors understood the law and applied the law to the facts presented by the able prosecutors.

The prosecutors’ theory against Henry K. Watson relative to the charge of attempted murder was based upon aiding and abetting. The prosecution was claiming that Watson aided and abetted Damian Williams. Brick throwing was the act that constituted the basis of the charges of aggravated mayhem and attempted murder against Williams. If Williams was aided by Watson, why wasn’t Watson charged with aggravated mayhem?

Before the jury rendered its verdict, the people in the community, including those who were down on Watson and Williams, were satisfied; but after the jury spoke, we now hear grumbling from various people.

The attorney general and other officials should tell the public that the jury made a finding that Watson had no intent to kill, and because of that finding, they were sworn to uphold the law and acquit him on attempted murder.

The attorney general should have told the public that each element of each charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

We need a leader to inform the public that the jury has spoken and that complaining about the verdict is not acceptable.

EARL C. BROADY JR.

Inglewood

Broady is attorney for defendant Henry K. Watson.