Police State & Federal Trials

In April, 1992, the four Los Angeles Police officers accused of beating Rodney King were acquitted, touching off the most destructive civil unrest in United States history. Most Americans were mystified by the jury's verdicts, wondering how 12 people could fail to convict the four officers who had been captured on video tape beating King. The next year, the officers were tried again this time in federal court and two were convicted. For most Americans, unfamiliar with the subtleties of the law, this appeared to violate the officers' constitutional right not to be subjected to "double jeopardy." This paper will attempt to explain both quandaries, examining why the officers were acquitted in state court and convicted in federal court, and then explaining why the federal trial did not violate their constitutional rights.

The state's case suffered a major blow before the trial even began when the Court of Appeals ordered the proceedings removed from Los Angeles County. The defense had asked for the change of venue, arguing that the enormous pretrial publicity would prevent their clients from getting a fair trial in Los Angeles County. Judge Stanley Weisberg denied their motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

In the eyes of many, Weisberg's next decision is the one that sealed the fate of the prosecution. Instead of moving the case to another county with similar demographics (such as San Francisco or Alameda), Weisberg moved the case to Simi Valley in neighboring Ven

Related Essays

TV Coverage of Trials .... version of the trial in which the state's case and .... the 1992 trial of the four Los Angeles Police officers accused .... The federal courts are among the last to bar .... (3679 15 )

FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES Thi .... Clark went on to say that cooperation between federal and state law enforcement .... justify the result reached by the Court but he said the police conduct also .... (2525 10 )

10 Criminal Cases Celebrated trials have long captured .... Federal courts are supposed to defer to state court .... the risk of creating differential results from state to state. .... awry, is an essential element of police work .... (5270 21 )

THE CRIME BILL OF 1994 .... to sexual predators convicted in state courts where .... The bill provides federal matching funds for 100,000 .... proponents argue that superior police protection will .... (1488 6 )

THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT .... the expansion of the rights of criminal suspects in state as well as federal trials. .... Miranda v. Arizona revolutionized police work by requiring a warning to .... (2823 11 )

ve Briseno's testimony, in which he declared that at some point, Powell went too far and he tried to stop him. Ultimately, Briseno's testimony did not hurt the defense, at least not at this trial. Having been seriously wounded, the prosecution mounted a rebuttal case. They called Commander Michael Bostic, the head of the LAPD's use of force review board. But he proved to be less than an effective witness, undone by technical questions, boring answers, and a lack of field experience. As the defense pointed out on cross-examination, Bostic had never actually had to make a decision in the field when to end the use of force (Cohen, 1992). In closing arguments, the prosecution finally began to show emotion, but too little, too late. They played the video and asked the jury: "Who you going to believe? Them or your own eyes?" Instead of making an emotional appeal, the prosecution lapsed into legalese: "What would a reasonable police officer do in this situation?" Plus, the prosecutors made two fundamental errors: They challenged the defense to show the video tape in its entirety (which the defense happily did), and district attorney Terry White's attempt at theatrics backfired when the judge rebuked the prosecutor for walk

Category: Government - P