While we’re talking about closing arguments in the Castillo trial . . . .
In his first closing statement this morning, the prosecutor (who had generally earned my respect by then) said something to the jury that did not sit well with me. This is not an exact quote. I wasn’t able to pick up a pen to transcribe what he said exactly.
- In voir dire I asked you to promise not to make your decision because of sympathy for any individual and to promise to follow the law. If you keep your two promises, the state will have no “qualms” about your verdict.
“Qualms” is in quotes, because he did use that exact word.
What are “qualms”? According to www.Dictionary.com, qualms are: “a sudden sensation or onset of faintness or illness, esp. of nausea.” I could argue that the prosecutor misused the term. What he really meant to say was he would have no disagreement with the verdict or no sense that any jury nullification had occurred. In other words, he would not think the jury broke its solemn oath.
To me, a layman, the prosecutor seemed to threaten the jury in the Castillo case that they would be frowned upon if they found the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.
A day or two ago, this same prosecutor tried to introduce into Dr. Wolfe’s testimony a reference to an old insanity defense that was successful. Apparently the jury in that case was vilified by the press and public after that trial. The defense objected to the reference on the grounds such testimony was prejudicial to the defendant, and the judge upheld the objection. However, in my opinion as a former juror, it was more than prejudicial to the defendant; it was another attempt to warn the jury that they would be condemned in the court of public opinion if they did not condemn Alvaro Castillo.
I think it ought to be illegal to threaten a jury, especially in a courtroom, and I think the NC Bar Association ought to censure this prosecutor. (This is just my opinion, and as you know I am not a lawyer.)
It’s no trivial matter to have the courage to serve on a high-profile jury and then to vote your conscience even when you know the public won’t like it.





Comments