Death Penalty

"If you don't follow my orders, I will sanction you. I will not hesitate to put you in jail."

That's what a judge (William R. Pounders) told a victim's family member.  Why?  Because, according to the Los Angeles Times, he was worried she might tell jurors "that she had forgiven" her husband's accused killer "or that she believed he should be spared the death penalty."

Lien Wiley was forced to testify about her husband by Los Angeles County prosecutors in their pursuit of a death sentence against Juan Manuel Alvarez, who is accused of causing a Metrolink train derailment that killed her husband, Don Wiley, and ten others.

According to the June 9 L.A. Times story, "Wiley sobbed as she told Pounders that she did not want to testify as a prosecution witness in the trial of Alvarez.  ‘I don't want to relive it,' Wiley said."

But she had no choice.  She testified about her husband "shaking and weeping", but refused to look at family photos of her husband.

Other victims' loved ones testified less reluctantly, and, according to the judge quoted in another LA Times story, the jurors were "having a hard time."

"Almost all are crying," Pounders said. He later advised the panel of nine women and three men that "if you start to lose it, and you can't take it anymore for a while, let me know and we'll take an extra break."

Quite a contrast with the threats the judge directed at Lien Wiley.

And what was the point of all this emotional testimony?  One clue might be that it came right after Deputy District Attorney Cathryn Brougham told the jury that anything less than a death sentence "is not justice."

But is the emotional manipulation of victims' family members (and jurors) really the best way to ensure that justice is done?

Brian

DPAC