The justice system ensures that every individual receives a fair trial regardless of political affiliation. This is based on the principle of impartiality, which means that judges, lawyers, and jury members are expected to set aside their personal beliefs and biases when making decisions related to a case.
The Reality of Human Bias is, however, that humans, by nature, have biases. These biases can sometimes influence our decisions despite our best efforts to remain neutral. This is a complex aspect of human nature that can impact the justice system.
The Expectation of Impartiality
In the United States, judges are bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which requires them to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Similar ethical rules also bind lawyers, and jurors are carefully selected and instructed to decide cases based solely on the evidence presented in court.
How are jurors selected? Humans have biases. These biases can be used to influence them in a certain direction.
In 1990, McGraw co-founded Courtroom Sciences, Inc. (CSI), a trial consulting firm, with lawyer Gary Dobbs. CSI would perform “dry runs” of court cases in simulated courtrooms, and McGraw would offer advice about what parts of the lawyer’s case worked and what parts did not. McGraw is no longer an officer or director of the company. The TV show Bull is based on McGraw’s experience as a trial consultant, and he is credited as one of the creators of the series. McGraw began working with Oprah Winfrey through CSI.
In 1995, Oprah Winfrey hired McGraw’s legal consulting firm CSI to prepare her for the Amarillo Texas beef trial. Winfrey was so impressed with McGraw that she thanked him for her victory in that case, which ended in 1998. Soon after, she invited him to appear on her show. His appearance proved so successful that he began appearing weekly as a relationship and life strategy expert on Tuesdays, starting in April 1998. Wikipedia
He is now famous as Dr. Phil with his own show.
Lawyers will attempt to remove jurors whom they believe will not agree with them!
The Perception of Fairness
While these measures are in place to ensure fairness, their effectiveness can be subject to debate. It’s important to continue discussions on these topics to strive for improvements in the system. The perception of fairness can vary among individuals based on their personal experiences and beliefs. The Importance of Fairness in Sexual Misconduct Allegations:
A Closer Look
In the wake of high-profile sexual misconduct allegations, such as those involving Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll, it’s crucial to examine the broader implications for ordinary individuals facing similar accusations.
Accusations of sexual misconduct can have severe consequences, even when they involve incidents from decades ago. The accused may face legal repercussions and significant damage to their reputation and livelihood. This is true for public figures and ordinary individuals alike.
In many cases, the question arises: why aren’t more reliable witnesses called? In the Carroll vs. Trump case, for instance, some have questioned why Tacopina didn’t call any witnesses who could provide a more comprehensive picture of the store’s layout and policies at the time of the alleged incident.
While it’s essential to create an environment where victims feel safe to come forward, it’s equally important to ensure that the accused are given a fair chance to defend themselves. This includes the opportunity to present their witnesses and evidence.
As we continue to grapple with these complex issues, it’s crucial to strive for a balance that respects the rights of both the accuser and the accused. Only then can we hope to achieve justice in its truest sense.
In the current era, where the #MeToo movement has brought sexual misconduct allegations to the forefront of public consciousness, it’s more important than ever to examine the implications of these accusations. High-profile cases, such as those involving Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll, have sparked widespread debate. However, it’s crucial to remember that these issues also affect ordinary individuals who may not have the resources or public platform to defend themselves effectively.
The Impact of Accusations
Accusations of sexual misconduct can have far-reaching consequences. For the accused, these can include potential legal repercussions and significant damage to their reputation, personal relationships, and professional standing. In some cases, the mere allegation, even if unproven, can lead to job loss, social ostracization, and severe emotional distress. This is true for public figures and ordinary individuals, underscoring the gravity of such accusations.
Lawyers commonly cite previous cases as examples or precedents in their arguments. This practice is known as citing case law. Lawyers use precedents of earlier cases to guide or justify the outcome of current cases. This is particularly common in standard law systems, where past decisions have legal weight.
The Role of DNA Evidence
Similarly, DNA evidence, often seen as irrefutable proof in criminal cases, can also be misused. In the hypothetical scenario, an individual claims to have a celebrity’s DNA on their clothes from a chance encounter. However, the presence of DNA does not necessarily prove a crime was committed. It merely proves that contact occurred, which could be as innocent as a handshake or a hug.
The Danger of Defamation
If a celebrity denies knowing the individual or committing the alleged crime, they could face a defamation lawsuit, which could result in significant financial penalties, further compounding the issue.
Prejudicial Power of a Photograph
This case raises several legal and societal questions. Does a photograph with a celebrity imply a personal relationship? Can anyone with a photo of another person accuse them of a crime based on that photograph alone?
These concerns highlight the need for caution and thorough legal proceedings. Everyone should be aware of these potential risks, whether a celebrity or not.
Caroll claims she knows Trump and was raped by him in Bergdorf’s women’s only store, but the only evidence is a photo taken years ago.
Caroll says she met Trump and his partner at the party. Her partner, who knew Trump, introduced them. They took thisphoto together, which she kept as a souvenir. She later split up with her partner and lost contact. Trump does not acknowledge knowing her.
You can meet hundreds or thousands of people at these parties in one evening. Thousands of pictures could be taken at these events in the hopes of getting a good shot.
His back and his wife Ivana are visible in the photo and Carroll can be seen with her husband. If you look at the picture, you see her eyes are towards Trump whereas he gives the impression of talking to her husband.
The Absence of Concrete Evidence
According to Caroll, she met Trump at the entrance of the Bergdorf women’s only store and joined her on a shopping spree.
She claims that he followed her into the changing room of a lingerie floor, where he tore her tights and forced himself on her. She says she has DNA evidence on her dress but does not mention the ripped tights, which he was supposed to have torn with his bare hands, and also his sperm, which must have spilled on her tights and clothes.
The defense lawyer asked why she did not keep the tights, which Trump allegedly had torn with his bare hands, that also might have contained his sperm, as it might have spilled on her clothes during alleged act of assault. According to her, she threw the torn tights away. Her tights with Trump’s DNA and sperm? Because she was traumatized but she then kept the dress intact and unwashed safely? There is no mention of panties. Why does she never mention panties?
Why was sperm never mentioned, or it’s absence? However, the lack of the torn tights and panties, which were never mentioned by both parties and could have provided more substantial evidence, raises questions. If the sexual assault has taken place? As per her evidence, sperm and vaginal discharge play a significant part in any copulation between any species but seem to be absent in Carroll v. Trump’s case, and neither lawyers were interested in asking for it. Sperm may be dead after ejaculating, but its DNA could be traced to the source and be easily identified, as was in Monica v. Clinton’s case.
The Role of Witnesses
Witnesses can play a pivotal role in sexual misconduct cases. Their testimonies can provide crucial context, corroborate or challenge the accounts of the involved parties, and influence the jury’s or public’s perception. However, the selection and presentation of witnesses can also be contentious. For instance, in the Carroll vs. Trump case, questions have been raised about why Tacopina didn’t call any witnesses who could provide a more comprehensive picture of the store’s layout and policies at the time of the alleged incident.
While it’s essential to create an environment where victims feel safe to come forward with their experiences, it’s equally important to ensure that the accused are given a fair chance to defend themselves. This includes the opportunity to present their witnesses and evidence, the right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and protection from trial by media. Striking this balance is a complex challenge that requires ongoing dialogue, legal safeguards, and societal awareness.
As society continues to grapple with sexual misconduct, it’s crucial to strive for a system that respects the rights of both the accuser and the accused. This includes ensuring fair and thorough investigations, protecting the dignity and privacy of all parties involved, and justly holding individuals accountable for their actions. Only then can we hope to achieve justice in its truest sense.
The Absence of Key Witnesses
One aspect that warrants further scrutiny is the selection of witnesses during the trial. For instance, why didn’t Trump’s lawyers or Tacopina call upon more experienced staff members, such as Stephen Elkin, CEO of Bergdorf from 1994 to 2000, who had worked at the store for 22 years? Or anyone with similar criteria, Betty S, Halbreich (now 96 years old), or any personal shoppers trained by her. These individuals could provide a detailed account of the store’s layout and policies and why two separate stores for women and men were created far away, thereby shedding more light on the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.
The choice of witnesses can significantly influence the course of a trial. Witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the environment where the alleged incident took place could offer invaluable insights. Their absence raises questions about the comprehensiveness of the evidence presented and the defence’s strategies.
“During my research, I came across an article titled Trump Lawyer Joe Tacopina Has a History of Clients Who Claimed He Betrayed Them. Ex-NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik is not the only client who sued the outspoken attorney, alleging he put his interests above theirs. The piece presents several allegations against Tacopina, suggesting that he may have prioritized his interests over those of his clients. As with any information, it’s crucial to ask: Is this article accurate? Are the claims substantiated? I encourage readers to delve deeper, consider multiple sources, and form informed opinions.”BY GREG B. SMITH AND TOM ROBBINS APRIL 3, 2023, 8:29 P.M.UPDATED APRIL 4, 2023, 9:22 A.M.
According to Caroll, the alleged SA happened in late 1995 or early 96 on a Thursday evening. The store was empty and the changing rooms unlocked with no attendants.
Why does a reputable lawyer not call a reputable witness from Bergdorf who could explain why Thursday evening is a heavy shopping day, why they opened separate shopping shops for men and women, why empty locker rooms have to be locked, or the attendant can lose the job, and why they are not going to let a thief walk away with expensive lingerie? While wearing it under their clothes? CCTV was on all the floors. No department store has CCTVs for only part of the shop, especially Bergdorf.
Thursdays are known for bustling evening shopping, especially among working individuals. Stores are vigilant against theft, so ensure locker rooms remain securely locked. CCTV cameras are strategically placed to monitor every corner, guaranteeing comprehensive surveillance. The end of the year, marked by celebrations like St. Nicholas Day, Christmas, and Hanukkah, along with the New Year, triggers a surge in consumer activity. This period, along with subsequent sales events such as pre-sales and clearance sales, sees retail outlets worldwide teeming with shoppers, making it one of the busiest times for commerce.
So how come the Bergdorf store had an empty changing room open and unattended in late 1995 or early 1996 during the heavy rush shopping season, and there was NO CCTV on the lingerie floor?
Wouldn’t it make sense for the defense to call a witness who could attest to these facts? Someone who could confirm the store’s policies and layout, the presence of CCTV cameras, the typical Thursday crowd, and the heavy shopping season? Yet such a witness is conspicuously absent.
(Is it possible the accuser is confusing Bergdorf with a department store like Macy’s, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 1992 and was working under Chapter 11. Macy’s stores reputedly had empty changing rooms left unattended due to a lack of staff, which continued in the 90s to the 00s.)
The Implications
The defense lawyer should have presented other photos of Trump with different women at various parties, which could show that the photo with Trump was not unique or indicative of a relationship.
The absence of credible witnesses also raises questions. Are the defense lawyers unaware of the potential value of this testimony, or is there another reason for their absence? How does this impact the case’s outcome? And most importantly, is justice indeed being served correctly?
