Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (March 28, 2019)
A4 East Oregonian Thursday, March 28, 2019 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor WYATT HAUPT JR. News Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OTHER VIEWS Justice must be unanimous The (Corvallis) Gazette-Times T he U.S. Supreme Court last week said it will consider overturning a criminal conviction by a 10-2 jury vote in Louisiana — potentially a big step toward eliminating the use of nonunani- mous verdicts in criminal cases in the only state where they’re currently allowed. That state would be Oregon. Not even Louisiana allows them anymore; the state’s voters last year approved a constitutional amendment that eliminated split-verdict convictions. (The Louisiana case involves a man, Evangelisto Ramos, who was con- victed in 2016 of second-degree murder in the killing of a woman in New Orleans. Ramos is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole; the change in Louisiana’s constitution took effect in January, too late to help Ramos without court action.) The court will hear Ramos’ case as part of its fall term, with a ruling presumably coming late this year or early next year. It’s possible that the court’s ruling in the case could render moot any efforts by this session of the Oregon Legislature to elimi- nate nonunanimous verdicts. It’s also pos- sible that the Legislature could act first, and a couple of bills to that end are pend- ing before the House Judiciary Committee. But regardless of the path we use — either through legislative action, a vote of the people on a constitutional amendment or via a Supreme Court decision — it’s well past time for Oregon to set aside this shameful relic of its past. Oregon’s nonunanimous jury prac- EO file photo The jury box, witness stand and court reporter’s station in the Morrow County Courthouse were rebuilt in 2001 to match the style of the original design. tice was born out of prejudice against immigrants and dates back to a Columbia County murder case in 1933 that paved the way for a constitutional amendment allow- ing juries to decide most felony cases on 10-2 votes. (A conviction for murder or aggravated murder still requires a unani- mous verdict.) Legal scholars (notably, Aliza Kaplan of the Lewis & Clark Law School) have writ- ten about the 1933 case, which involved a Jewish suspect, Jake Silverman, on trial for murder. One juror held out against con- viction, and the jury eventually reached a compromise guilty verdict on a lesser charge of manslaughter. Silverman got three years in prison. The backlash was considerable. The Morning Oregonian, for example, railed against the verdict on its editorial pages, in language that was — well, not even bor- derline racist, but you can be the judge. Consider this excerpt from a November 1933 editorial: “This newspaper’s opin- ion is that the increased urbanization of American life ... and the vast immigra- tion into America from southern and east- ern Europe, of people untrained in the jury system, have combined to make the jury of twelve increasingly unwieldy and unsatisfactory.” (To be fair, The Orego- nian recently recanted this 1933 editorial position.) The Legislature, responding to the out- cry, voted to place a constitutional amend- ment on the May 1934 ballot to allow nonunanimous juries. The measure was approved by 58 percent of voters. Since then, a number of attempts have been made to amend the constitution on this point — including a recent effort by the Oregon District Attorneys Association — but none has gained much traction. Since the effort requires amending the constitution, it would require a public vote. Rep. Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, has introduced one measure, House Joint Res- olution 10, which would refer to voters in 2020 a constitutional amendment to do away with nonunanimous verdicts. She’s also introduced another measure, House Bill 2615, to repeal the statutory authority for nonunanimous verdicts in criminal tri- als; it’s essentially a holding measure for the 2020 election. It could be that the Supreme Court will beat Oregon voters to the punch by declar- ing these nonunanimous verdicts unconsti- tutional. That would be fine. Even though Oregon residents love to brag about the state’s independence, here’s a case where that independent streak has become not just an embarrassment, but an affront to justice. OTHER VIEWS YOUR VIEWS Mueller sent sign after sign on collusion Water bill hike will hurt all summer M any Trump opponents were shocked and disap- pointed by Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian gov- ernment in its election interfer- ence activities.” Some members of the “Resistance” and NeverTrump communities apparently had a deep emotional commitment to the idea of collusion. But there was no reason for surprise. For more than a year, Muel- ler sent sign after sign that he would not allege collusion. B yron Those signs y ork took the form of COMMENT indictments and plea agreements against key Trump figures that did not allege any conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. If those key Trump figures — Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen and others — were not involved in a Trump-Russia conspiracy, who was? As it turns out, no one. The first big sign came in Octo- ber 2017, when Mueller indicted Manafort and Gates for tax eva- sion, bank fraud and failure to reg- ister as a foreign agent, among other crimes. Prosecutors detailed Manafort’s extravagant spending, like a $15,000 ostrich coat, but left out any accusation that Manafort and Gates were involved in con- spiracy or coordination with Rus- sia to affect the election. Manafort and Gates were well- known for dealings in Ukraine that involved politicians with links to Russia. Media reports were filled with speculation that the Ukraine connection meant that Manafort, and to a lesser extent Gates, were part of some sort of Trump-Russia wrongdoing. But the charges were what they were — and they did not allege collusion. Gates pleaded guilty, and by all accounts coop- erated extensively with prosecu- tors. And yet with all that infor- mation, Mueller did not allege that Manafort or Gates were part of a collusion scheme. That was an early and signifi- cant clue that there was no collu- sion scheme, but it was a clue that many partisans and media com- mentators ignored. Also in October 2017, low-level, short-term Trump foreign pol- icy adviser George Papadopou- los pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about the timing of his contacts with Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor with connections to both the U.S. gov- ernment and Russia. Although much remains unclear about the Mifsud encounter, the one thing Mueller did not do in the Papado- poulos indictment was allege con- spiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. The next big move came in December 2017, when top Trump foreign policy aide Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition. Flynn, a retired three- star Army general, was deeply involved in shaping the Trump campaign’s foreign policy posi- tions, and, after his guilty plea, cooperated with Mueller’s prose- cutors. If there were a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to rig the election, it is hard to believe Flynn would not have been involved. And yet Mueller never charged Flynn with taking part in any such conspiracy. Other signs followed. In Feb- ruary 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russians and three Russian com- panies for trying to interfere with the U.S. election. He did not allege that any Americans were accom- plices in that. Also in February, Mueller filed several new charges against Manafort and Gates. Again, no word of collusion. In June 2018, Mueller indicted Manafort yet again, this time with his Ukrainian business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, on a variety of charges. Still no charge of con- spiracy or coordination. In July 2018 Mueller indicted 12 Russian military officers whom he accused of hacking and distrib- uting emails from the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign chair- man John Podesta during the 2016 campaign. Again, Mueller did not allege that any Americans con- spired with the Russians. In August 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud, and other charges leveled by Justice Department prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. He also separately pleaded guilty to a Mueller charge of lying to Con- gress in testimony about the tim- ing of the abandoned Trump Tower Moscow project. Yet again, Mueller did not allege conspiracy or coordi- nation between Russia and Trump, or the Trump campaign, or related figures like Cohen. In January 2019, Mueller indicted Trump associate Roger Stone on charges of lying to Con- gress about details of his contacts regarding Wikileaks. And still again, in his last indictment, Muel- ler did not allege conspiracy or coordination. In some cases, Mueller’s pros- ecutors issued what are known as “speaking indictments,” that is indictments that told a story, that contained more than the minimum information necessary to level charges against a defendant. And yet in all those indictments, Muel- ler not only did not allege that this or that Trump figure was part of a conspiracy or coordination — he never alleged that such conspiracy or coordination took place at all. Mueller’s public actions were public, for all to see. The indict- ments were public, for all to read. Yes, there was some redacted material, but anyone could see, throughout the entire time, that Mueller never alleged conspiracy or coordination. And yet the media speculation remained in high gear the entire time, shifting into over- drive any time there was a new indictment or other Mueller action. And now, some are surprised that Mueller did not allege con- spiracy or collusion. They should have been watching more closely all along. ——— Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner. Just received my monthly Hermiston city bill and I had a $33.28 increase in the month I probably use less water than any other time of the year. My sewer charge has doubled also. But they included a very nice explanation for where all these rate increases are going to be used, a veritable wish list of new and excit- ing capital expenditures. The hot weather is not upon us yet but I can see many people conserv- ing water this summer in numerous ways. Look to see a lot of brown yards and dead trees. But not to worry, we will have our improvements to our city, just that no one will want to live here when it is all burnt up. Our city council needs to learn how to vote no on the wish list of our city manager and his assistant. Building a resume on the pocketbooks of our citizens is a good way to find out if the resume is viable. Gary Quick Hermiston The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters must be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number. The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send letters to managing editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801, or email editor@eastoregonian.com. Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
