I can’t say I’ve followed the murder trial of Oakland resident Hans Reiser that closely, but now that it’s close to wrapping up, it’s definitely getting a bit comical. (But not for the defendant, I think.) Reiser, accused of killing his wife back in ‘06, apparently doesn’t think much of his defense attorney William Du Bois, and tried to change lawyers about a week ago. Judge Larry Goodman laid into Reiser, saying Reiser was”trying to make a mockery of [the] proceedings.”
Fast forward to today. Du Bois, winding up defense arguments to the jury, said it is “inconceivable” (hopefully in his best “Princess Bride” voice) that Reiser killed his wife. However, if he did, it would only be manslaughter. Huh? Why would a defense attorney leave the door open a crack like that for the jury? If I were on the jury, I’d take that to mean that even Reiser’s lawyer has doubts about his innocence.
Further, Du Bois laid out the prosecution’s argument for the jury, saying that the way the evidence has been presented makes it look like Reiser’s guilty no matter what:
“So if it’s clean, we can infer guilt,” Du Bois said of the car. “If it’s dirty, we can infer guilt. If he made a phone call to his wife only once, we can infer guilt. If he made many, you can infer guilt” on the ground that he was trying to throw people off, Du Bois said.
I’m no lawyer, but a lesson I recall from my rhetoric 1A class is never make a point for the other side. Clearly that didn’t occur to Du Bois. Du Bois then levels some personal attacks on his client:
“You may dislike him - that would put you in the majority of people who know him - but he didn’t commit the crime.”
Apparently Du Bois also likened Reiser to a duck-billed platypus, in some effort to make the jury understand that he’s a weird creature.
So I’m thinking now that Reiser did murder his wife, his attorney knows it and is trying to backhandedly get him convicted, and that the two men deserve each other.
Apr 21st, 2008
