The Courtroom Explained Through the Trials of the Century : The Evidence, Arguments, and Drama Behind the Cases Against President Clinton and O.J. Simpson
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
Preview of The Courtroom Explained Through the Trials of the Century
Self-Contradiction: You Are Your Own Worst Enemy
Picture a witness on the witness stand--anything that the witness said previously that contradicts the witness can be used to impeach him or her. This makes sense: consider a small child (in a Norman Rockwell scenario) who tells us little Johnny ate the cherry pie, then she says, no, actually it was big sister Susie, we don't know which version to believe. With self-contradiction, as in all forms of impeachment, if the witness is untruthful in one part of his or her testimony, the fact finder (e.g., jury, grand jury, Senate) may disbelieve the witness on this point as well as the witness' entire testimony.
Classic examples of impeachment by prior inconsistent statements involve statements by Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton. Ms. Lewinsky initially testified before the grand jury on August 6, 1998. She admitted to having performed oral sex on the President on a number of occasions, and engaging in other sexual acts with him, including his touching her breasts and genitalia. She previously provided an affidavit, dated January 7, 1998, in which she testified under oath, in the Paula Jones case that:
"I have the utmost respect for the President who has always behaved appropriately in my presence ... I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship."
This is a good example of impeachment by self-contradiction: We didn't have sex, we did have sex.
The President's statements provided fodder for impeachment by self-contradiction. Using his grand jury testimony as the starting point, the President testified on August 17, 1998 to being alone with Ms. Lewinsky in 1996 and once in early 1997, to engaging in conduct that was wrong, and to having inappropriate, intimate contacts with her.
The President appeared on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on January 21, 1998, and said "[t]here was no improper relationship" which he defined as "[w]ell, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship." To the extent that the President admitted that he had "inappropriate, intimate contact" and "engaged in conduct that was wrong," these statements contradict the President's earlier statements on the News Hour that there was no "improper sexual relationship," or "any other kind of improper relationship." Thus, this is an example of the President making prior inconsistent statements.
In Mr. Clinton's previous deposition testimony, the questioning went as follows:
"Is it true that when she worked at the White House she met with you several times?
"I don't know about several times. There was a period when the Republican Congress shut the government down that the whole White House was being run by interns, and she was assigned to work back in the Chief of Staff's Office, and we were all working there, and so I saw her on two or three occasions then, and then when she worked at the White House, I think there was one or two other times when she brought some documents to me ...
"... At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky together alone in the Oval Office?
"I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked at the Legislative Affairs Office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She-- it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there ...
"So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have specific recollection of that ever happening?
"Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible ...
"At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone in the hallway between the Oval Office and this kitchen area?
"I don't believe so, unless we were walking back to the back dining room with pizza. I just, I don't remember. I don't believe we were alone in the hallway, no."
"At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room of the White House?
"I think I testified to that earlier. I think that there is a, it is--I have no specific recollection, but it seems to me that she was working for the Legislative Affairs Office and brought me some things to sign, something on the weekend. That's--I have a general memory of that." (Emphasis added.)
The President's deposition testimony that he was alone with Ms. Lewinsky a couple of times when she brought him documents is inconsistent with his grand jury testimony that he was alone with her for the conduct that was wrong, the inappropriate, intimate contacts. In other words, the inconsistency is not so much that they were alone, but that they were alone for sex rather than for his receipt of documents.
Indeed, Chief Judge Wright, who presided over the Paula Jones case, found President Clinton in contempt of court for these sworn statements concerning whether he and Ms. Lewinsky "had ever been alone together," concluding they were "intentionally false." The Judge also found Mr. Clinton in contempt of court for his statements "regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky," stating that they were intentionally false, "notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term 'sexual relations.'" It is worth noting that the House of Representatives voted down the actual Article of Impeachment on a charge of perjury based upon these later statements concerning "sexual relations" in the Jones case. (The perjury charge before the Senate was based upon President Clinton's testimony before the grand jury). Judge Wright commented:
"Although the President did not disclose any specific acts between himself and Ms. Lewinsky, he did state that oral sex performed by Ms. Lewinsky on himself would not constitute 'sexual relations' as that term was defined in his deposition. (Citations omitted.) It appears that the President is asserting that Ms. Lewinsky could be having sex with him while, at the same time, he was not having sex with her."
Judge Wright found inconsistencies between the President's deposition statements, and his later acknowledgments of an improper relationship and that the two had been alone.
In May 2000, the Arkansas Supreme Court initiated disbarment proceedings against President Clinton for his denial of a sexual relationship in the President's January 1998 deposition in the Jones case.
If Relevant Evidence Hurts Too Much, the Judge Can Exclude it
Even if evidence is relevant, a judge has the ability to exclude it, but only if the prejudicial value outweighs its probative value. Although the particular piece of evidence is relevant to the action, a judge may exclude it if it creates a danger of "undue" prejudice. Doesn't all evidence help one party, and conversely hurt the other side? Yes, but for this standard to be invoked, the introduction of the evidence must really, really hurt the opposing party.
Perhaps the most famous ruling on this issue is found in the Simpson criminal court's ruling regarding whether
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
Most of the country was glued to the Internet, observing President Clinton's extramarital affair unfold. Just a few years earlier, riveted to the TV, many watched the LAPD's slow-speed chase of O.J. Simpson. These major cases of the last decade present a tremendous opportunity to learn how the courtroom works. The Courtroom Explained Through the Trials of the Century explains the nuts and bolts of what drove the Paula Jones case, presidential impeachment proceedings, and O.J. Simpson criminal, civil and guardianship actions, once these high-profile cases reached the courtroom. The nuts and bolts are the rules of evidence.
What did President Clinton have in common with O.J. Simpson? Weren't they both the subject of DNA testing? Police found a blood stain on the back gate of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium that matched Mr. Simpson's DNA, and only one out of 57 billion people had blood that would match that drop. The FBI determined that the semen stain on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress matched President Clinton's DNA, and the DNA markers were considered characteristic of only one out of 7.87 trillion Caucasians. Considering that the world's population reached 6 billion in 1999, this was pretty significant evidence. Monica Lewinsky admitted that she had a sexual relationship with President Clinton in tapes surreptitiously recorded, denied it later in an affidavit, and then admitted the affair before the grand jury and Senate. The President admitted an inappropriate relationship with her, but had in the past denied having sexual relations with her. In the Simpson criminal trial, the judge allowed Detective Mark Fuhrman's use of the "N" word, but the civil judge did not. The Courtroom Explained addresses the rules of evidence raised here.
The amusing examples from these high-profile cases in The Courtroom Explained make traditional principles of evidence easily understandable. Evidentiary questions posed (and answered) include: What are lawyers looking for in jury selection? How does opening statement differ from closing argument? What pitfalls must a witness avoid so he or she won't get "impeached"? How does the judge's role differ from the jurors? What do all of those objections actually mean? What is the point of a deposition before trial? And, what is behind the mystery of expert witnesses?
For those not familiar with the details of these exemplary cases, The Courtroom Explained provides a summary of the evidence and arguments in the Paula Jones action, the impeachment case against President Clinton (including the Starr Report and proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, and Senate), and the O.J. Simpson criminal, civil, and guardianship cases.
Be prepared to be entertained, and surprised to learn what really makes a courtroom work.
About the Author
Beverley R. Meyers has served as a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California's Department of Justice since 1987. Beginning her legal career in 1983, Ms. Meyers served as a Deputy City Attorney, then as a Deputy District Attorney before joining the Office of the Attorney General. In 1997, Ms. Meyers received the Attorney General's Award for Outstanding Achievement in Litigation. Since 1990, Ms. Meyers has taught Evidence and Criminal Law courses at St. Mary's College in California.