Ripples in the Aftermath of Outrage

Dick Shaw of Castaic writes:

A few comments and/or opinions about your article taking umbrage to George Will’s column. . . . First let me say I believe with all my heart the verdicts were highly influence d by intimidation. . . .

And Mr. Shaw goes on, for three pages, to explain how the jury in the Reginald Denny beating trial was unduly influenced by a group of black activists, resulting in a verdict widely criticized as too lenient.

It’s only been a few days since the last brave foray into reader mail, but here we go again. Forgive me if you’re tired of rehashing the ballad of Reginald and Damian. These days, Damian Williams doesn’t seem as scary as Tonya Harding’s bodyguard. Still, it would be a shame not to acknowledge the thoughtful reaction to a column last week that chided Newsweek pundit George Will for a telling factual error.

Will, readers may recall, had written that the jury “decided that smashing Reginald Denny’s skull with a brick did not constitute assault with a deadly weapon.” This is false. In fact, the jury decided that the attack wasn’t attempted murder, but rather mayhem--a charge that carries twice the penalty of assault with a deadly weapon.

Will cited the jury’s verdict as an example of the “hysteria” that characterized 1993. My point was that Will, by unwittingly exaggerating the jury’s alleged leniency, showed that the people unhappy with the Williams verdict and his 10-year sentence are susceptible to hysteria themselves.

Shaw’s viewpoint is a common one. He doesn’t buy my suggestion that the video of the Denny beating, while proving Williams’ guilt, raised doubts about his intent. Jurors took note that Williams, instead of doing his ugly dance, could have finished off Denny if he had wanted to.

Shaw writes: What would possibly be the intent of someone throwing a brick as hard as possible from point blank range to the side of someone’s head? Would a reasonable person not think that a brick thrown into someone’s face would not maim or kill or seriously injure another?

Absolutely. And in fact, the jury found that Williams’ crime was maiming--the more common term for mayhem.

Rather than the evidence, Shaw attributes the verdict to “intimidation” by black activists, including Williams’ mother, who attended the trial and protested loudly enough to be heard during deliberations. Again, this is a popular view, one shared by the activists themselves. Shaw further suggests that the jury was “intimidated” by the forewoman. (Although Shaw doesn’t mention it, it is well known that the forewoman, who is also African American, made news by joining Williams’ mother during sentencing and suggesting that Williams’ 10-year sentence was too harsh.)

No court case, especially a high-profile one, occurs in a vacuum. But the political pressure came from both sides. Playing to the crowd, Chief Daryl F. Gates personally arrested Williams and Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner initially charged him with torture. Their zeal helped increase public expectations of a life sentence while elevating Williams to the status of antihero in the cause of blind, equal justice.

I find it hard to imagine how the jury forewoman could have “intimidated” 11 fellow jurors. People seemed to quickly forget that this forewoman, along with other jurors, persuaded the judge to dismiss a juror, who is black, because she seemed unable to comprehend her duties. This extraordinary action, heatedly criticized by Williams’ supporters, may have averted a mistrial.

The ultimate question is whether Williams’ sentence of 10 years fits the crime.

A recent case in Orange County makes for an interesting comparison.

Like the Denny beating, this was a hate crime. The primary assailant, like Damian Williams, was 19 years old. The victim, 56, was found nearly dead with a rock lodged three-quarters of an inch into his head. This man, who can no longer walk without assistance, was beaten simply because his attackers believed him to be gay.

Jeffrey Michael Raines pleaded guilty to attempted murder and two lesser charges. In the end, Raines was sentenced to 10 years in prison--the same as Damian Williams.

Gay activists had worried that the Raines plea would result in a lenient sentence. So did they march over this sentence? Were they outraged?

To the contrary, gay leaders were satisfied. They had feared a much shorter sentence.

*

Two other readers offered differing perspectives on Reginald Denny.

Sanford Holst of Sherman Oaks writes:

After an upsetting event, whether people seek anger or understanding says a great deal about them . . . . The lasting memory of the Denny case I have is. . . Reginald Denny reaching out to their mothers and bearing no ill will against anyone. Reginald Den n y should be a role model for Los Angeles. We’ve been beaten down, but we’re survivors, and we’re going to make our return with a bit of class.

On the other hand. . .

Mark W. Nelson of Glendale writes:

. . . before I embrace the new year with all my old cynicism vanquished, I will wait to see exactly how much another jury awards Denny in his lawsuit again s t the city for failing to provide him with adequate police protection after the King verdict came in.

Denny may be able to forgive Williams for his felonious assault. I would like to know if he is able to forgive the taxpayers of Los Angeles in the same way.

*

It’s hard to find fault with Denny for suing a city that pays out damages for minor injuries that may result from poorly marked sidewalk repair. But according to the city attorney’s office, Denny doesn’t have much of a case.

State law and legal precedents strongly affirm that the taxpayers aren’t culpable for the failure of government entities to provide services. In other words, you can sue the city if your home is burglarized--but you can’t win.

Attorney Johnny Cochran has an uphill fight. He may reap good publicity by representing Denny, but he’ll probably make more money billing a client named Michael Jackson.

*

All this Denny stuff has given me a headache. Allow me to sign off with a letter concerning another important column--one that described a “mooning” incident in Studio City.

Lillian Kleinman of Sun Valley writes:

This column has got to be the stupidest, most boring thing you have ever written! Is this what you went to school for? Is this what a prize-winning newspaper actually pays you to write?

You should be ashamed to see it in print! What absolute banal drivel!

Well! This calls for a point-by-point response: I’ve written many stupider, more boring columns.

--I went to school to meet chicks.

--They pay me, but not enough.

--I am deeply, deeply ashamed.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.

Shaw writes: What would possibly be the intent of someone throwing a brick as hard as possible from point blank range to the side of someone’s head?