I’d like to also clear up either an error in your understanding of the case or an error in term usage. You used the term “exonerated” when discussing the case after appeal when the private attorneys came on board. Mr. Bell and his co-defendants were never “exonerated” or even found “not guilty.” The appeal and reversal of Mr. Bell’s case was because the appellate court found that the state should have charged Bell as a juvenile, not as an adult. The reversal had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but a legal error the DA made when prosecuting the case.
After the appellate court reversed the trial court, the state could appeal the decision or move forward with a separate charge as a juvenile. While the state waited to make that decision, the judge kept Bell in jail. Once the state decided not to appeal the appellate court’s decision and moved forward with a juvenile case, the judge granted bail and Bell was released per his bail conditions and the conditions placed on him for prior convictions unrelated to the Jena 6 case (more on that in a minute). Bell subsequently violated the terms of his probation. Ultimately, just days before trial, Bell plead guilty to the reduced charge of battery. He was sentenced to 18 months in juvenile detention. Abbey Brown, Bell Admits Role in Attack, The Town Talk (December 4, 2007). (Aside: my citations will be in Bluebook form, which is the standard for legal citation. Please do not assume my citations are in proper APA format).
So, this brings me to my last line of questioning. You mentioned the decisions of the DA and took issue with some of them. Perhaps for good reason. However, charges, trial decisions, and sentencing often take into account a defendant’s prior encounters with the criminal justice system. Did you discover any information about Mr. Bell’s prior contacts with law enforcement in your research? Prior to this Jena 6 incident, Mr. Bell was on probation for a prior battery charge. While he was on probation for the prior battery offense he committed two additional violent crimes. See, Abby Brown, ‘Jena Six’ Defendant’s Criminal History Comes to Light; Bond Denied, The Shreveport Times (August 25, 2007). **Again, remember I will use Bluebook citation, the standard for legal citation, not APA; therefore, do not assume my citations are APA compliant.** Given this point, how would you respond to those who argue that the prosecutor’s decisions to charge Bell as an adult and to “throw the book” at him by charging out more serious crimes were perfectly reasonable and ethical? How would you respond to someone who argues that a person who has multiple violent felonies and encounters with law enforcement should be charged more harshly? Does it matter that this was a teenager? If so, why? Was it unethical to consider his prior contacts with law enforcement? If so, why? At what point should prosecutors begin to consider a defendant’s prior criminal activity for charging, bail, or sentencing purposes?
As a defense attorney, I had to make tactical trial decisions in each case based on a number of factors, one of the most important being the client’s “criminal history score.” This is a numerical score given to each defendant based on his prior contacts with law enforcement. The more contacts, and the more serious of contacts, increase a person’s score. From a defense perspective, this directly affects decisions on whether to take a plea, whether to have the defendant testify, whether to have other witnesses testify, and what strategic choices to make during the process. From the state’s perspective, this score directly affects what to charge a client with, what to offer on plea, and sentencing suggestions. Given Mr. Bell’s multiple prior contacts involving violence, it is almost certain both the state and the defense took his criminal history score into account when making many of the decisions we’re second-guessing today. How does the information, and the knowledge of Mr. Bell’s prior criminal history, affect your understanding of the case?
