Brain Fertilizer

For a few days there, it seemed like we might have a Runaway Jury.* It's a great book (although Hollywood's self-serving and cynical choice to change the anti-smoking message to an anti-gun message is deplorable) and a great read, but it also very nearly constitutes a primer of how to manipulate a jury to get a desired conviction.

Ms. Malkin implores us to not forget that Laci wasn't the only victim. She goes on to mention that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups opposed the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence legislation.

If you put those two ideas together, it begins to seem possible that something sinister was going on.

Let's say the spate of juror dismissals was, in fact, an attempt to alter the constitution of the jury to get an acquittal or guarantee a conviction. When you suspect something like that, you have to consider who would stand to benefit, and who has the means to bring it about.

First, let's dispose of any idea that Laci's family would try to pack a jury to get a conviction. If Laci's family believes Scott did it, I'm sure they believe it is obvious enough to not have to cheat to do it. Even if they wanted to "increase the chance for justice to be served"**, how could they afford to do so, or be willing to risk getting caught and having him set free on a technicality?

Scott Peterson obviously did not want to be convicted of murder, regardless of his actual guilt or innocence, so he would benefit...but he obviously lacked significant resources to pack the jury. It would take several hundred grand, at least, I'd think. His parents appear comfortable, but hardly rich enough to swing that sort of cash without setting off all sorts of alarms. I wouldn't think anyone in Scott's family would have the expertise to pull it off, either.

What about Pro-Life groups? Would they want to get a conviction with Connor being named a victim to score points for the pro-life agenda? I don't think so. Again, the risks of getting caught are fairly large for so small a payoff. The networks aren't really playing up the "baby-victim" part, they are only talking about the murder of Laci. There's no real upside for Pro-Life groups to risk everything to get maybe a 10% greater chance of getting what seemed from the beginning to be a near-slam dunk conviction.

Ah, but the euphemistically-named pro-choice groups, that's a different story! The spokesperson for the California chapter of NARAL famously went on record that trying Scott for the murder of Connor would "set a bad precedent". Liberals everywhere were put in the awkward and obviously hypocritical position of saying that a designated spokesperson for a group wasn't actually speaking for that group. NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and other directly or indirectly pro-choice groups certainly have a great deal of experience in litigation, and have scads of cash to blow in support of any trial that might affect abortion rights. A high-profile case in which the defendent looked to be heading for a conviction for murdering an unborn child would set a bad legal precedent that does erode abortion rights on some level, to some degree. Although probably an imperceptible difference, this does open the door to other rulings that could alter the fundamental attitudes and rights that are now taken for granted. Things like this do change minds. With all this at stake, it might just be worth the risk to try to ensure an acquittal.

Likely? No. Inconceivable? Not at all. Live by the sword, die by the sword, yanno?***

UPDATE:
I don't seriously think the above is the case. I think it may be the burgeoning novelist inside me jumping on an intriguing plotline possibility.

*One of the few books I literally could not stop reading, btw.

**which is an oxymoron, in my view.

***Abortion rights were established by sidestepping democracy through the imposition of the court. It would be ironic if they were overturned the same way.