Mean Justice / An Interesting Book by Edward Humes

On the recommendation of a reader, I just finished a book by Edward Humes.  The title of the book is Mean Justice (“A Town’s Terror, A Prosecutor’s Power, A Betrayal of Innocence).

I’m not going to attempt a literary ‘review,’ there are many others who can do that sort of thing much better.  But I do have some comments that you might find of interest.

Edward Humes is a prominent writer and a winner of the Pulitzer Prize.  In this particular book, he selected as a focus subject, a convicted murderer (Pat Dunn).  Dunn was convicted in 1993 for the murder of his wife, Alexandra.  I suppose the overshadowing premise of the book is the belief that Pat Dunn was wrongfully convicted due to malfeasance on the part of Kern County (Bakersfield, California) law enforcement, and particularly the District Attorney’s Office led by Ed Jagels.  To add spice to a rather formulaic murder case, Humes brings in many other, and unrelated, instances of withholding evidence, unethical practices, and frankly criminal conduct on the part of the police and prosecutors.  If true, the allegations are shocking and unconscionable.

Humes began to research the Dunn case at the prompting of private investigator, Laura Lawhon an investigator retained by the defense attorney representing Pat Dunn.  Lawhon approaches Humes, relates her beliefs regarding the case and Dunn’s innocence; and offers Humes volumes of interviews and other evidence that she has acquired.  Humes is obviously intrigued to the point that he begins and finishes the above stated book (copyrighted 1999).

For those contemplating becoming, or are currently, private investigators involved in criminal defense, I recommend the book.  It gives you many insights regarding the difficulties, frustrations, and occasional danger faced by PI criminal defense investigators.

Lawhon comes off as a compassionate, dedicated investigator; but somewhat naïve, in my opinion.  Her principal attributes as an investigator are apparently an agile mind and a disarming smile.  She admits to becoming so personally involved in some of her cases that she continues to correspond with convicted clients in prison – even, at times, furnishing them money for various reasons (money which she apparently acquired due to an inheritance).

The best investigators, both in criminal defense and in law enforcement, are pragmatic, professional, experienced, ethical, honest, and generally do not become personally involved.

Regarding the fairness, or lack thereof, of Dunn’s trial, there is plenty of fault to go around.  If Pat Dunn did not receive a fair trial, fault may lie with his lack of a proper defense, a skilled but allegedly unscrupulous prosecution, a jury unable to comprehend significant aspects of the evidence presented by the defense and the prosecution and/or a judge who ineptly managed the entire process.

As a writer, Humes keeps the reader in a state of expectation.  Unfortunately, those expectations are never realized, and were perhaps unrealistic to start with.  Dunn is convicted by a unanimous jury.  Although troubling doubts remain in her mind, Lawhon has discovered that jury decisions are hard to overturn during an appeal.  Nonetheless, the ‘real killer’ is never identified, and Dunn remains incarcerated.

I guess my grinding frustration with Humes' book is his constant referral to all the ‘innocent’ people that have been sentenced to long prison terms and even given the death penalty.  He cites many examples of innocent people being ultimately set free when new evidence is presented.  Many of those people cited were released not because they were ‘innocent,’ but because their case was deemed no longer viably prosecutable.  Am I splitting hairs?  No, I don’t believe I am.

For example, a defendant claims that he was in the backyard smoking a joint and totally stoned, when a girl he had picked-up at a bar was raped and murdered in his bedroom.  He is convicted and sentenced to life in prison.  Years later it is determined that the semen specimen (DNA) found in the girl’s vagina did not match the defendants.  A new trial is ordered; but many witnesses are now unavailable and the evidence collected has degraded to the point that much of it would be inadmissible.  A new trial is deemed not feasible.  Would you consider him ‘innocent?’  I would consider him ‘not guilty’ or not prosecutable under our system of criminal justice, but ‘innocent?’  I don’t think so.  Hume seems incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference between innocence and ‘walking’ for lack of, or improperly presented, evidence.

The public generally holds attorneys in low esteem.  There is a reason for that.  And, I have personally observed the reason first hand.  For attorneys, particularly trial lawyers, it is all about winning.  I’ve often wondered if law schools teach ethics; and, if they do, the nature of that instruction.  The practice of law among attorneys, in my opinion, closely parallels a sporting event like baseball or football.  If you are not flagged by the judge during a trial, your cleverness in putting one over, is praised by your colleagues – regardless of who is hurt in the process.

Private Investigators, in Oregon, are required to have a certain number of instructional hours each year on the topic of ethics.  It always amuses me that the instructors, invariably, are attorneys.  That is one of the last occupational groups that I would select to lead a discussion on ethics.

True Nelson