The Trial of Bernhard Goetz: Hero or Vigilante - Essay Example

? The Trial of Bernhard Goetz: Hero or Vigilante? HERE] HERE] In the 1980s, New York was a haven for criminals, with violent crime at an all-time high. On December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz took matters into his own hands when he believed that he was being threatened by four youths that shared a subway car with him in Manhattan, New York. What followed was a bizarre set of twists and turns, as he fled from justice, only to turn himself in and confess to police what had happened. Hindering the case of the State of New York was the fact that the public, who were fed up with the crime rate only wished to live safely in their own city, canonized Goetz as a hero. In the eyes of the public, Goetz was a first-class citizen who had shown that, should the law of New York not be willing to help, he would take matters into his own hands. This paper states the facts leading up to the case in which Goetz was brought to trial, as well as the trial strategies employed by both sides, and a critique of those strategies. Part I: Case Background On Saturday, December 22, 1984, Mr. Bernhard Goetz of Manhattan, New York, according to trial records, left his apartment at approximately 1:00PM. He proceeded to board a subway line, line two of the “IRT”, or Interborough Rapid Transit line, one of many that serve the New York City area and the surrounding boroughs (Feinman, 2005). In the middle of the 1980s, there was an average of thirty-eight crimes per day on the subway transit system, and crime was the number-one complaint made to City Hall (Linder, 2011). Goetz had already been attacked in 1981, by three African-American youths, and sustained injuries that would be permanent (Friedman & Daly 1985). He had applied for a gun permit, but was turned down (Friedman & Daly 1985). This, however, did not stop him from carrying a loaded pistol with him on that day, a .38 special that held five bullets, two of which were hollow-point (Rubin, 1986). Seated in the car were other passengers, approximately fifteen to twenty in number, including four male youths of African-American descent, Barry Allen, Darrell Cabey, Troy Canty, and James Ramseur (Rubin, 1986). Their purpose for being on the IRT was unclear; in subsequent interviews, the stories that were given clash from going downtown for no reason at all, to going downtown to rob quarters from video game machines (Fletcher, 1988). All four had police records, and all were found to be carrying screwdrivers (Rubin, 1986). Mr. Goetz boarded the subway and took a seat near the four young men. A short time later one of them, Troy Canty, approached Goetz and either asked or told him to give them five dollars (Rubin, 1986). It was at that point that Goetz shot three of the four young men (Fletcher, 1988). Upon looking things over, he shot again, and hit Darrell Cabey (Fletcher, 1988). It has been described that Goetz either said, or thought very hard the words, “you seem to be doing all right, here’s another,” before shooting Cabey (Linder, 2011). All four were wounded, and the bullet that hit Cabey shattered his spine (Rubin, 1986). At that point, the conductor entered the car and, upon seeing Goetz still holding the pistol in his hand, approached him cautiously and asked if he was a police officer (Fletcher, 1988). Goetz answered that he was not, and stated that he did not know why he had shot the young men (Fletcher, 1988). Then he stated, “They wanted to rip me off” (Rubin, 1986). After the conductor pulled the emergency brake, bringing the subway to a complete stop, Goetz then walked calmly through the door that the conductor had opened, jumped onto the tracks below and fled quietly into the autonomy of New York City (Rubin, 1986). Police did not initially know that it was Goetz that was the shooter. They had an accurate description from the eyewitnesses of the subway car, who stated that the shooter was male, white, mid-30s, with slight build and blond hair (Fletcher, 1988). They also knew that two of the bullets were hollow-point bullets (Rubin, 1986). It took an anonymous tip line call on December 26, 1984 to reveal that the shooter was Bernhard Goetz, but the police still could not find him, despite leaving notes with the doorman of his apartment building, in his mailbox, and on his door (Linder, 2011). For several days, Goetz drove around New England, once calling his neighbor and asking her to meet him with a rental car (Friedman & Daly 1985). He even returned to New York, returned to his apartment, and fled again (Linder, 2011). It was not until Goetz walked into the Concord, New Hampshire police station on December 31, 1984, at 12:10PM and identified himself, as well as announcing that he was the shooter that was being wanted for questioning, that he was placed under arrest (Rubin, 1986). Goetz then proceeded to waive his right to an attorney and give the police his statements and confessions (Rubin, 1986). Police recorded at least two confessions, one on tape and one on video, and over the next few days it became apparent that Goetz would and could change his mood at will (Linder, 2011). He believed that the press was out to get him, and could not stand talking to any “Manhattaners” (Linder, 2011). Goetz would be calm one moment, nervous and agitated the next, stating that his entire intent upon pulling the trigger was to kill the youths that had bothered him (Christenson, 1991). Four days after he turned himself in, Goetz was extradited back to New York, where further confessions were made and recorded, to be later used as evidence (Christenson, 1991). Goetz then entered a bizarre limbo until he went to trial. Originally, he was arraigned on four counts of attempted murder (Linder, 2011). In January 1985, a grand jury would not indict on anything more grievous than charges of illegal gun possession (Christenson, 1991). This so angered some African-American political and religious leaders that they tried to persuade the United States Attorney for Manhattan, Rudolph Giuliani, to treat the case as a Federal case for civil rights, but ultimately it was found that not enough evidence existed to take this route (Chambers, 1985). In March, after receiving permission from a judge to do so, the District Attorney submitted to a second grand jury that there was cause to indict on ten counts of “aggressive violence”; this time the grand jury agreed, indicting on four counts of attempted murder, four counts of assault, and one count of reckless endangerment (Linder, 2011). However, in January 1986, Judge Stephen Crane dismissed nine of the counts, leaving Goetz charged with reckless endangerment and illegal gun possession (Christenson, 1991). Unfortunately for Goetz, in July 1986, the Court of Appeals reinstated the nine counts that had been dismissed, stating that there was no reason to have them dismissed, and ordering Goetz to stand trial on all ten counts (People v. Goetz, 1986). The trial began in December of 1986 but did not actually get underway until 1987. Part II: The Trial The prosecution began with opening statements by Assistant District Attorney Gregory L. Waples on April 7, 1987. His strategy was simple: Goetz was guilty of cold-blooded, aggressive murder, in a contained space, with an illegal gun. In his opening statement, he questioned everything about Goetz, including morals and values, as well as his mental state on that day in the subway car (Johnson, 1987). Waples did his best, in his opening statement, to begin to convince the jury that Bernhard Goetz was a cold-blooded, ruthless killer prone to episodes of uncontrollable rage and aggression (Johnson, 1987). The prosecution had many different forms of evidence, including two days of testimony from the medical professionals and police that had investigated the case, followed by eyewitnesses that had been in the subway car with Goetz. Eight passengers that had been eyewitnesses, as well as the subway conductor testified for the state, giving basic descriptions of where they had been seated in the subway car and what had happened between Goetz and the four young men (Linder, 2011). Most eyewitnesses characterized the moods of the youth as “boisterous” and “loud”, with agreement that they were “acting rowdy”, while stating that Goetz was very quiet upon boarding (Rubin, 1986). The star eyewitness, Christopher Boucher, had less to do with the mood of the young men and more to do with the fact that, according to the prosecution, Goetz had shot Darrell Cabey without provocation (Linder, 2011). Boucher testified that he had perfect eyesight, and that he had seen Goetz shoot Cabey calmly in the front of the chest (Fletcher, 1988). Other eyewitnesses included a couple, Garth and Andrea Reid, who both stated that none of the youths appeared to “make any threatening gestures” towards Goetz (Linder, 2011). The confessions given to New Hampshire police, as well as the confession made after extradition to New York, were both played at various times (Johnson, 1987b). It was in these tapes that the prosecution rested their hope that the claims of self-defense would be picked apart, as Goetz continually incriminated himself while making rambling and meandering statements to the police (Johnson, 1987b). The tape showed that Goetz even recalled that one of the youths, Cabey, apparently was “sitting down and not terribly hurt”, and so he fired again (Johnson, 1987b). Goetz also stated that he “knew he sounded vicious”, and that after seeing the look on one of their faces, it was then that he decided that he would “kill ‘em, murder ‘em all, anything” (Shipp, 1987). Perhaps the highlight of the case was when two of the young men that Goetz had shot testified for the prosecution. Both Troy Canty and James Ramseur were put on the witness stand and questioned about Goetz and his actions on December 22, 1984 (Lindor, 2011). Canty testified that no one of his group was acting reckless, and they had no intentions to harm Goetz (Johnson, 1987a). However, Canty and his credibility were damaged by the fact that he had been in a drug-treatment facility since shortly after the shooting, and already had a police record (Fletcher, 1988). Also questioned was the fact that Canty had been given immunity for his testimony (Johnson, 1987a). James Ramseur was also called to testify, but did not do so willingly. At first he refused to testify entirely, and then invoked his Fifth Amendment rights (Johnson, 1987c). He did manage to state that he and his friends, aside from Troy Canty, were shot while either running away or minding their own business (Johnson, 1987c). During his entire testimony he was impatient and had to be reprimanded by the judge after blurting that Goetz would “be found not guilty anyways” (Johnson, 1987c). His credibility and account were questioned when Ramseur admitted he had been granted immunity as well (Johnson, 1987c). Barry I. Slotnick, lawyer for Goetz, set about proving that Mr. Goetz was a man that was suffering due to previous attacks. The strategy had always been just as simple as the prosecution across the aisle: Goetz acted in self-defense, as any person would act if they were threatened in such a situation. Goetz had already been attacked once, thus he was scared, and needed to carry the gun with him for protection. It was not his fault that it was not licensed; he had tried to follow procedure and get it licensed, but had been turned down (Friedman & Daly 1985). During cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, Slotnick managed to find one or two erroneous statements. He was helped by the testimony of James Ramseur, who at one point shouted “What has this got to do with him shooting me?” when questioned about his police record (Connelly & Douglas, 1987). Slotnick also cross-examined Andrea Reid, and found that, in exchange for the testimony of her husband, she had been permitted by the prosecution to rip up her subpoena and not appear in court (Linder, 2011). Slotnick then introduced evidence that went to the state of mind of Goetz during the alleged attack. His witnesses included a passerby of the previous mugging in 1981 and the doctor that had treated Goetz (Linder, 2011). The doctor stated specifically that Goetz was left with a “permanently damaged right knee” (Linder, 2011). Slotnick then moved on to police officers that had been the first on the scene, specifically Officer Peter Smith, who stated that when he arrived, Troy Canty was bleeding on the floor of the subway car (Rubin, 1986). He also stated that Canty, said “we were going to rob him but he shot us first,” when the officer bent over him (Rubin, 1986). Only one medical professional was called to the stand. Dr. Bernard Yudwitz, a neuropsychologist, testified that the response by Goetz to the alleged attack was one of adrenaline (Fletcher, 1988). He also stated that, when faced with a situation as Goetz had been, the “upper level of the mind turns off” (Fletcher, 1988). In addition, Dr. Yudwitz explained the shot that had wounded Darrell Cabey, saying that Goetz would still have been on “automatic pilot” and therefore would not have been able to “evaluate the situation until the last shot had been fired” (Linder, 2011). As another bonus for his client, Slotnick arranged a field trip. Jurors examined from the inside and the outside a subway car identical to the one where the alleged attack had occurred (Linder, 2011). The judge instructed specifically that no one was to question jurors about their impressions, nor were they even to speak to them during their field trip (Linder, 2011). Nevertheless, the trip helped the jury to realize just how Goetz had felt, and the way in which he had reacted to the youths on that December day (Linder, 2011). The defense also had a ballistics expert, Joseph Quirk, stage a reenactment of the crime in the courtroom for the jury. Originally, four court officers were to be used, but in an unprecedented move, the judge allowed four Guardian Angels to stand in (Christenson, 1991). The Guardian Angels, who had been helping to raise money for the defense team as well as to bail Goetz out of jail before his trial, stepped in with four African-American people (Christenson, 1991). The re-enactment served two purposes; first, it helped to drive home how threatening the situation was to Goetz, and second, it showed the paths of the bullets as they were fired (Linder, 2011). Lastly, the defense called Dr. Dominick DiMaio. DiMaio was a former medical examiner and was called upon specifically to support the theory of the bullet trajectories established by Quirk (Linder, 2011). However, the prosecution took its turn to discredit a witness, and upon cross-examination forced Dr. DiMaio to admit that, in 1976, he had concluded that six women had died of natural causes when in fact they had been smothered to death by a serial killer (Linder, 2011). The jury did not return a quick verdict. After four days of deliberations, Goetz was found guilty on the charge of weapons possession in the third degree, which carried a penalty of up to 7 years in prison (Christenson, 1991). It was impossible to defend against this fact, as it was the possession of the gun itself that was the catalyst to all of the other charges. However, the jury did not feel that the state had proved its part in the trial. The seed of doubt had been planted as to whether or not it was, in actuality, self-defense, and thus Goetz was acquitted on all charges of attempted murder, assault, and reckless endangerment (Linder, 2011). Part III: Critique of the Strategies Both sides in this case played their parts well, though it is my opinion that the defense presented a better case. This is not only due to the fact that the jury sided with the defendant. First and foremost, the state ran a sloppy case almost from the beginning. Before the case was even a day old, the media had wind of it, and it was not downplayed or diverted in any way. Though the state probably thought this went to their advantage, as people would go out and look for Goetz once a description was released, it attracted attention because Goetz, in the mind of the people, had done something that no one else had dared to do. Goetz had fought back against his tormentors, and had shown, through his actions, that he would not be a victim any longer. To people that were living in a high-crime city and area, Goetz spoke for them when he fired his gun. It did not make for good media when the state then went after him. Though it was understandable that they did, as people taking the law into their own hands would soon lead to societal anarchy, Goetz was allowed to become a hero to the people first. This did not help the case of the state at all. Also, Goetz was originally arraigned on attempted murder, but then only indicted on weapons charges. That, to me, states that the grand jury did not find enough evidence. The state, though it secured permission from a judge to try again, with more evidence and more testimony, should not have had to do so in the first place. If they had waited, and gathered more evidence, and only presented to the grand jury once, they would have looked less like unprofessional vigilantes themselves and more like seasoned attorneys attempting to take a killer off of the streets. Moving on to the trial, the biggest question in my mind is, if the state had as many means available to them as the defense did, why did they not employ them? Why was the side of the defense the one to insist on the re-enactment, as well as the field trip? The state could have easily suggested such a thing in the course of presenting their case. Had they done so, the jurors would have been able to see things from a different angle. A videotaped re-enactment or even a live-action re-enactment at the scene, with the subway car, might have proved to be the winning piece of the puzzle for the state. In allowing the defense to play these strategies, sympathy was turned towards Goetz, as the defense was allowed to show the various ways and means that one could feel threatened and intimidated by four people on the subway. In the end, this was a key piece of evidence in the jury deliberations; they were not convinced that anyone would not have acted the way Goetz did during that day. The state also did not do well, in my opinion, not to have Goetz psychiatrically examined before the trial, nor was it a good idea not to call any medical experts to the stand that would speak on the issue of what occurred that day. Though the prosecution could cross-examine Dr. Yudwitz, he was testifying for the defense, not the prosecution. Medical experts and psychiatric evaluations, as well as expert testimony by psychiatrists during the trial, could have proved one way or another how Goetz viewed those in the world around him, specifically the young men that were injured. In trying to prove that Goetz was an unstable, cold-blooded killer with rage and aggression “issues”, a psychiatrist could have been invaluable in assessing his state of mind, not only that day in the subway but also through different scenarios that such professionals carry out with patients in the course of their therapies and sessions. In addition, the state could have done better to hide its tracks in the agreement that was made with the couple, Garth and Andrea Reid, with his testimony being used as a motivator for them to ignore hers. Once a subpoena is issued, it is mandatory for the person to show up at court; this is common knowledge. Even if she had done nothing more than to confirm what her husband had said, Andrea Reid would have yet again affirmed what might have happened in that subway car, and thus allowed the state to gain more credibility with the jury. Instead, the defense easily discredited her. Finally, Mr. Waples and the state should have quit while they were ahead. After playing a videotaped confession to the jury, James Ramseur was called to the stand. As he had been reluctant to testify before a grand jury, even without being given immunity, the state should never have called him as a witness at trial. Affidavits submitted by him and by Canty would have been just as solidifying, had they been entered into evidence. Also, the jury was forced to learn more about Ramseur that discredited him by allowing the defense attorney the opportunity for cross-examination. Though surely they would have done so anyway, during the deposition phase of the trial, a sworn affidavit read aloud to the court that has been read and stipulated to by the defense attorney takes less time, and has far less chance of damaging answers that can ring in the ears of the jury and plant seeds of doubt, or make the defendant look helpless and at the mercy of the witness. In allowing Ramseur to testify, and further to humiliate him before the court by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights as well as taking a sullen and uncooperative attitude, Waples did little to help his case. Instead, he established that, contrary to the views of the eyewitnesses, James Ramseur was a sullen, solid “hoodlum” with little respect for authority and a limited sense of right and wrong. It may not be an exaggeration to say that, in calling Ramseur to the stand, Waples allowed himself to be played right into the hands of Slotnick. Slotnick was trying to prove that Goetz was only acting in self-defense, and Ramseur showed that he would intimidate those that he perceived as weaker than him. This is not to say that the defense proved that Bernhard Goetz actually acted in self-defense. The verdict that the jury returned is not necessarily because they believed him not to be guilty of the majority of crimes he was charged with, but because they believed that the state did not prove him guilty. It is suspicious, to me, that Goetz never took the stand in his own defense. Was it because he was still as erratic as he had been in his taped confessions? It certainly seems that, had things happened as he had suggested, and he was only trying to defend himself, that he would have taken the stand in his own defense, along with long and loud proclamations to this effect. In retrospect, however, it was probably the wiser of the two choices for Slotnick not to call Goetz to the stand, as his views on the New York authorities may have done more harm than good. On a final point in the defensive strategy, it is my opinion that, while short, the defense played the better part because they offered more real-life testimony in their actions than in straight witness testimony. The state was only too happy to line up people that would sit in a chair and talk about what happened, but it was the defense that took the lead in manipulating the situation to actually show the jury what occurred. Also, bringing in the expert to discount the testimony of the eyewitness was absolutely brilliant, and necessary. Above all else, it planted doubt in the minds of the jury that Goetz had not acted in self-defense, and was quite possibly not the cold-blooded and aggressive killer that the state asked them to believe he was. Conclusion Bernhard Goetz was tried, found guilty of only one charge out of many, and under the laws of double jeopardy, could not be tried again. At the time of his release, though civil suits were still pending, Bernhard Goetz had had his day in court, and the verdict was clear. Goetz was not guilty of anything except, in the eyes of the jury, defending himself. It was a sentiment that was echoed by the people of New York City and the surrounding boroughs. The era of the tormenter was over, and they would not be victims any longer. References Chambers, M. (1985, January 30). U.s. attorney meets with blacks over request for inquiry on goetz. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/30/ nyregion/us-attorney-meets-with-blacks-over-request-for-inquiry-on-goetz.html Christenson, R. (1991). Political trials in history: from antiquity to the present. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Connelly, M., & Douglas, C. C. (1987, May 24). In goetz trial, defense goes on offense. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/24/weekinreview/the-region-in-goetz-trial-the-defense-goes-on-offense.html Feinman, M. S. (2005). The new york city transit authority in the 1980s. Retrieved from http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/history-nycta1980s.html Fletcher, G. P. (1988). A crime of self-defense: Bernhard goetz and the law on trial. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Friedman, M. & Daly, M. (1985, February 18). My neighbor bernie goetz. The New York Magazine, 18(7), 34-41. Johnson, K. (1987, May 02)(a). Goetz shooting victim says youths weren’t threatening. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/02/nyregion/goetz-shooting-victim-says-youths-weren-t-threatening.html?src=pm Johnson, K. (1987, May 03)(b). Everybody is edge as goetz trial opens. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/03/weekinreview/everybody-is-edgy-as-goetz-trial-opens.html?src=pm Johnson, K. (1987, May 20)(c). Youth shot in subway says he didn't approach goetz. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/20/nyregion/youth-shot-in-subway-says-he-didn-t-approach-goetz.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm Linder, D. (2011). The bernhard goetz trial. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/ projects/ftrials/goetz/goetzhome.html People v. Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 (Court of Appeals of New York 1986). Rubin, L. B. (1986). Quiet rage: Bernie goetz in a time of madness. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Shipp, E. R. (1987, May 22). The goetz defense: Overcome taped statement and eyewitness testimony. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/22/nyregion/the-goetz-defense-overcome-taped-statement-and-eyewitness-testimony.html?src=pm Read More