Make Jury Pitch Fit Crime Alleged

Where was the outrage? Where was the passion behind the pitch to the jurors -- who presumably represent the conscience of the community -- to get these three “sadistic” rapists off the streets?

While listening to prosecutor Dan Hess’ closing argument to the jury this week in the closely watched gang-rape trial of three young men. I kept waiting to hear the emotion. It never came.

I’m not talking about phony theatrics or florid language; that’s not Hess’ style, and he should be true to himself. A rape case is too serious for grandstanding, and you certainly couldn’t accuse Hess of that. But how about some sense that the three defendants he’s arguing should spend years in the state penitentiary make his blood boil? Or, at least, percolate a little bit? That they’re a menace to society?

Here’s my point: If they don’t make his blood boil, will they make the jurors’?

Hess’ low-key argument basically urged the jurors to match the 24 counts being charged to what they see on the infamous 21-minute video of the incident and to return guilty verdicts. He’s obviously convinced the video is a slam-dunk argument that the alleged victim, 16 at the time, was unconscious or too incapacitated to consent to the sex performed on her or having objects inserted into her.

Maybe I’ve been to too many movies, but in a case described as involving a brutal rape, would it have been too much to expect some anger from the district attorney?

Hess urged jurors to send a message and convict, “not because we’re mad or outraged,” but because the facts fit the charges.

In a case rife with ambiguity and conflicting testimony, I wonder if that will be enough to persuade jurors to come back with guilty verdicts that, almost certainly, would send the teens to state prison.

In his one stab at metaphor, Hess likened the defendants’ behavior on the night of the alleged assault to that of youngsters. “These are little boys pulling the wings off a butterfly,” he said, obviously hoping to underscore their callousness and the victim’s helplessness.

Point taken, but society doesn’t send young boys to prison for pulling wings off butterflies. Before sending three teens to the state pen, I’d like to think they’re in a much worse category than mindless young boys. Even if few think the young men will get the upper end of the maximum 55 years provided for by the charges, significant prison time is certainly in play.

As I’m typing this sentence, the jurors are deliberating. Not that predictions mean much, but I wrote in advance of the trial that I didn’t think 12 jurors with the predictable wide range of life’s experience would convict the defendants of rape, given these specific circumstances. Nor do I think they should.

Given the built-in and often intractable emotions of a case like this, I’d expect a hung jury. The safest bet is that passions will run high in the jury room.

Maybe that’s why Hess’ final pitch to the jury surprised me. In rereading my notes from his opening statement two months ago, I recalled how his similar recitation of the details had a steadily building, powerful effect. But what worked as an opening statement struck me as much less compelling as a closing argument, when all of the evidence was in and the witnesses had spoken.

That seemed the time for a flesh-and-blood person to explain why the defendants are so dangerous, rather than letting a video do the talking.

He didn’t, so here are the bookends that jurors took to deliberations: Hess began the trial referring to the defendants as “men” and ended it comparing them to “little boys.”

If prison sentences for sadistic rapists are what he’s after, that language seems to go in the wrong direction.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana

.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.