In the Courts, Justice Should Trump Winning

Re “Defense Attacks Questioning of Inmate,” Feb. 4: L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Allen Field, in justifying his decision to authorize the interrogation of Thomas Lee Goldstein, a man the federal courts have ordered released, asserts that his “role” is “to defend the rights of the deceased in court.” Field’s viewpoint is not uncommon among those on the enforcement side of the criminal justice system, but it ought not to go unchallenged. He is not the deceased’s avenger. His role is to see that justice is done. Winning may be everything in football, but in a court of law it takes second place to fundamental fairness, which is presumably a benefit to everyone -- the deceased, the accused and, not least, the public.

Carlton Smith

South Pasadena

*

I read with great interest your Feb. 3 article regarding the overturning of Goldstein’s murder conviction because of the testimony of an unreliable jailhouse informant named Edward Fink and the district attorney’s filing of new charges. The article mentions a death penalty case in which a federal judge opined that he had “extreme doubts as to the veracity of Fink’s testimony.” This refers to the case of my client, Thomas Thompson.

In 1984, Thompson, who had no prior criminal record, was convicted of a rape-murder and sentenced to death in large part based on the testimony of Fink. Though Goldstein will hopefully be getting a fair trial without the tainted testimony of jailhouse informants, Thompson was denied a new trial and was executed in 1998. The contrast in outcomes of these two cases highlights the irrevocable nature of the death penalty and the fallibility of the criminal justice system.

Andrew Love

San Francisco