Prosecutors should produce preponderance

FLO MARTIN

One can’t put a price tag on justice being served.

Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas must retry Greg Haidl, Kyle Nachreiner

and Keith Spann. A new trial will give both the prosecution and the

defense in this case the opportunity to cross their T’s and dot their

I’s and do a thorough job in presenting evidence to a new jury.

Some 20 years ago, another trial got daily headlines in the Los

Angeles Times, the Register and the Daily Pilot. For three weeks, the

attorneys interviewed more than 250 prospective jurors before seating

the final 12 and the four alternates. To this day, I shudder at the

memory of the moment we heard the attorneys say that they had

accepted the jury as seated. My heart began to pound, my stomach

began to sink and my head began to reel. I, Juror No. 2, was scared.

The jury heard a total of 60 witnesses in that murder case. We

heard from family members, from a multitude of experts, including

dentistry professors from USC and UCLA, anesthesiologists and

pathologists with law degrees, county coroners, nurses, paramedics,

police officers, a medical equipment salesman, dental assistants and

from a variety of people who had witnessed the events that resulted

in the deaths of three people.

The prosecution presented 49 of those witnesses. I filled 2 1/2

Steno notebooks. Then the defendant testified. (Another half a

notebook.) The defense attorneys presented four more expert witnesses

-- a pathologist, an anesthesiologist, an emergency physician and a

detective. I was well into Notebook No. 4 when the prosecution

presented 15 rebuttal witnesses -- more doctors and dentists, more

anesthesiologists, more emergency medical technicians, more

pathologists, another coroner and an FBI agent. Literally

mind-boggling!

I became very familiar with terms like endotracheal intubation,

medullar paralysis and histopathologic changes, just to name a few.

Sure, I liked science in high school and in college, but this was

ridiculous. This was more like medical school, dental school and law

school all rolled into one.

From March 28 to July 24 that year, the jury heard the same

details from every possible angle. The experts endlessly drummed

forensic medicine into our heads. By the time closing arguments

rolled around, I had five full notebooks in my lap -- no skipped

lines, either. Some had more than 10 books filled. We all felt like

medical school graduates.

The closing arguments lasted two days. Then the deliberations. We

pored over our notes again and again. We talked, we lay awake at

night, we agonized and I must admit, we cried.

The discussion never got personal. No one ever got cranky or mean.

The jury did its job and five days later came to a unanimous

decision.

Looking back on the trial, I realize that the deputy district

attorney who led the prosecution’s case knew that in order to provide

the jury with the tools for a unanimous decision, he had to present

the same evidence from a multitude of witnesses -- total overkill. He

could not leave any rock unturned. He had the responsibility to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt, and he took his good time.

That trial must have cost us taxpayers a very pretty penny indeed:

legal costs for the state -- pretrial investigations, preliminary

hearing, three weeks of jury selection, four months of trial, all

those experts at hundreds of dollars a pop, and a week of

deliberation, with a couple of lunches thrown in for the jury. I

can’t even imagine the bottom line.

Should Rackauckas try again? Should he shoot for “overkill?” For

the sake of all concerned, you better believe it!

* FLO MARTIN is a Costa Mesa resident and former high school

teacher.