One of the biggest complaints of all jurors is that judges hide evidence from them. Jurors are supposed to be “the finders of fact,” but judges often bar crucial evidence from trials. Apparently that’s what has happened in the Jim Leyritz vehicular manslaughter trial.

Several days ago during the evidentiary hearing, the defense submitted evidence to Judge Marc H. Gold (see Linda Trishcitta of the Palm Beach Post), who rejected it, because it shows that the driver of the other car may have broken several traffic laws herself, including DUI. His justification for this is a principle in law that information about victims is irrelevant to culpability of the defendant. It’s one of those “blind justice” principles: justice is not concerned with the flaws in a victim’s character; it doesn’t matter who the victim is.

In the Leyritz case, though, by excluding evidence about the victim, the judge has severely restricted the defendant’s right to an affirmative defense (at least I believe that’s the term for it—I am not a  lawyer).

Leyritz’s planned defense was that he was not solely at fault in the accident. As I understand it (and I could be entirely wrong about this), Leyritz contends that while he had been drinking that night, he was not over the legal limit at the time of the accident. Furthermore, he may have entered the intersection where the collision occurred while the light was still yellow. The victim’s car may not have had its headlights on (a traffic violation); the victim may have been on her cell phone, perhaps texting while driving; the victim was not using her seatbelts (also a violation in many jurisdictions), which may have resulted in the seriousness of her injuries; and most importantly, the victim was over the legal limit herself.

Because the judge excluded the evidence showing the victim was DUI, not wearing seatbelts, and did not have her headlights on, he has limited the information the jury will have—severely. And if the jury finds Leyritz guilty, I guarantee you that they will be outraged when they learn what they did not know.

Victims are Victims

I understand why a crime victim’s character is irrelevant. For instance, the fact that a rape victim is a prostitute is completely irrelevant, and I resent it whenever I hear accused rapists claim their victims are promiscuous or enticed them.

At the same time, rape defendants are entitled to claim that no rape occurred, because it was consensual, and murder defendants that the homicide was justifiable. Surely a manslaughter defendant should be able to claim that the accident in which he was involved was caused by the victim.

That’s what the jury is supposed to decide, not the judge: the jury is supposed to decide who was at fault or more at fault—in every violent crime, whether rape, murder, or vehicular manslaughter.

Yellow Lights

I believe I heard during the Leyritz evidentiary hearing that there was a question as to whether or not the light was red when the defendant entered the intersection. On In Session I saw a squad-car videotape in which an eyewitness seemed to say she saw the victim’s car flip over and then looked up and saw the light was red. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it was red when the two cars collided.

The witness’s remarks are evidence, but not proof of guilt. The jury is supposed to decide what the facts were: was the light yellow or was it red when Leyritz entered the intersection?

I can almost hear the prosecution’s closing arguments now: “If the light was red when the victim’s car flipped over, then it must have been red when the defendant entered the intersection; otherwise the victim would have had a red light and would have stopped before she entered it.”

Of course, if the victim was drunk, she might not have noticed the red light herself, or might not have reacted properly to it. If her car had no headlights, then the defendant likely did not see it as it entered the intersection (whether he had a yellow light or not) and so could not slam on his brakes in time. If the victim was fiddling with her cell phone, she probably wouldn’t see the traffic lights at all.

Unfortunately, recently I had a similar experience. I entered an intersection on a yellow light that turned red when I was in the exact center. A car in the oncoming turning lane whipped out in front of me the instant he had the green light, and we both had to slam on the brakes.

Now, it so happens in Illinois that the law says that even when a light turns green a driver must wait until the intersection is clear before proceeding. I was not in violation of the law; the car that turned in front of me was. Had we collided, I’m sure the damages would have had to be settled in court.

(The whole incident was caused by a blinding sunrise behind me: the sun in the other driver’s eyes probably blinded him so that he did not see me. Furthermore, I don’t normally drive through yellow lights, but the light changed behind a drooping tree branch, and by the time I was in the intersection—right behind another car—I suddenly realized it was yellow. I don’t like cars—my father died in a car wreck. I find this kind of thing really frightening. It’s even scarier to think what might have happened if the car that turned in front of me had had a DUI driver at the wheel.)

Sidebar: Somewhat ironically, when I visited CNN’s In Session blog today I found a post by a staff writer (Rae Oglsby) who had been called to jury duty and was ultimately rejected because she would likely know too much about crime and trials to be impartial. I could have told her this would happen: judges and lawyers treat jurors like mushrooms (in the dark, etc.). The more ignorant a person is, the more the courts like them.