THE RUNAWAY DEFENDANTS

Let me share one case in my experience as a Trial Judge, which is ordinarily one of the many  run of the mill petty cases which simply clog the court dockets, if not, for the object lesson it presents  of how we view human  behavior.

The case arose from an incident of snatching which happened in the downtown area,  by an alleged group of teenage boys, who grabbed the hand bag of a woman, and running away with it. As they sped away others scampered.   The police officers on the beat, was alerted by the shrill cries of the victim. They saw a group of young men running fast so they gave chase. The two policemen were able to make an arrest. The hand bag was never recovered. Five  teenage kids were charged of Robbery.  

Things got interesting when I called the case for trial.

All five boys  entered “not guilty” pleas.

The first witness to be called was the woman, the victim herself. She said everything happened too fast and she was caught unawares when someone grabbed her bag and wrestled it away that she staggered. She saw a person running  away fast with her bag.  She wasn’t sure who forcibly took her hand bag, and she was not sure if the five teenagers charged in court were the snatchers. All she knew was the policemen  presented the boys to her as the suspects. Through the suggestion of the apprehending officers she signed a statement without any factual basis that the five individuals caught by the policemen were the robbers.  Her stolen property was not found. Neither was it found in the possession of the five the defendants. She openly repudiated her prior written statement as to the positive identification of the defendants.

The apprehending  police officers,  testified next, telling the court that they heard the screams of the woman, crying out she was robbed. When they approach to investigate they saw people running away so they gave chase and caught five of them. They admitted they did not see who actually snatched the woman’s hand bag. They presumed  since they were running away they were the perpetrators.    

On the basis of these testimonies the prosecutor had no other evidence.

This is one case which need not waste the time and resources of the court. Before the defense counsel could present his defense, I took the bull by the horns. I hate it when police officers are sloppy.

So in open court I questioned the defendants.

Do they know each other? No.

What were they doing when the incident happened? Window shopping.

Do they know the victim? No.

Did they rob the woman of her hand bag? No.

Do they have any prior criminal record? Vigorous shaking of heads, No.

Did they know or hear  the woman scream when she was robbed? No.

In what circumstances were they arrested? They were  running.

Why did you run? Because many people were running and scampering, in different directions so they were alarmed. They also ran with the crowd. They noticed the police behind them so they ran all the more but they got caught.

I looked at the Prosecutor and told him he had no case. He agreed. He moved for dismissal.

People would  say the oft quoted remark, “They happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Maybe true but still a bad joke. They were arrested simply because they were running away with the others who were fleeing not knowing what was going on.  

It is textbook rule that the flight of the accused is competent evidence to indicate guilt especially when it is unexplained. Here it is not one where the running away of the defendants is unexplained. More so under the circumstances where many others in the downtown crowd  were running  in different directions. All of them could possibly be suspects if we get the drift of the policemen.  The defendants here  thought running with the crowd was the right or the safest thing to do.

Not too long ago, psychologists have discovered the “herd instinct” or sometimes referred to as “social proof” coined by Rolf Dobelli.   

A herd instinct is a behavior wherein people join groups and follow the actions of others. Herd behavior in humans is a social behavior that is caused when individuals subjugate their individual will, thoughts, and behaviors to the majority; the group or herd. Herding does not require a leader, it just requires individuals coming together at the same time to act. And that is exactly what happened here. Psychologists trace this instinct from the will to survive. We are the direct heirs of those who copy behaviors of others. This pattern is deeply rooted that we see it in the modern world.  We follow the herd because they might be headed to the truth or the right and safe way, or the most profitable way.

The great writer W. Somerset Maugham once commented, “If fifty million people say something  foolish, it is still foolish.”

Yet more often than not we act foolish because many are doing it.

THE LAST AND FINAL SAY

THE LAST AND FINAL SAY

The Judge is showing signs of fatigue. He’s been presiding over his Court for the past four hours. The last case in the calendar is called and the Attorneys of the opposing camps stand on their feet, as they declare their appearances. The Judge wants to wind up this last item in the calendar, so he tells the lawyers to be done with preliminary matters, and agree             on the undisputed facts.                     

The lawyer of the man pompously begins, “Your Honor this is a simple case. My client seeks to negate the paternity of the child, he purportedly has with the defendant, and thereby be relieved of whatever obligations with this child and to stop provision for support. We have very good  reason to believe that the child is not his child. This is the only issue, your Honor.” 

The Judge looks at the lawyer, and asks, “Since when did your client believe  he is not the father of this child?”

The lawyer answers, “ A couple of years after he has been giving financial support through the child’s mother, the defendant your Honor. My client came to realize that he could not have sired this child.”

“And why is that so” asks the Judge.

The lawyer clears his throat, and explains, “The last time he was intimate with the defendant was in September of 2000. The defendant gave birth to the child early April of 2001. We admit your Honor that my client has been giving support to this child, for the past three years but he was deceived by the defendant by telling him that she delivered the child prematurely. We have marked in evidence the medical records which shows that birth was far from premature but perfectly within the full term,  your Honor. Furthermore your Honor we are going to prove that plaintiff could not  possibly have physical access or sexual congress with the defendant prior to the month of September 2000 as he was out of the country.”

The Judge shifts his imperious gaze at the defendant’s table.

The woman with down cast eyes sits motionless. The child a little girl, sits beside her squirming in her seat. Her Lawyer waits for the Judge to speak. “Are we clear on the issue, counselor?” the Judge  asks her lawyer.

The lawyer rises and responds, “Yes, your Honor, and the defendant maintains  that her  child’s father is none other but the plaintiff. She denies she deceived him, and plaintiff’s  prior act of giving support to the child is an implied admission of his paternity.”

The Judge swivels to the direction of the man’s counsel but fixes his eyes on the little girl who is holding her mother’s hand.

The Judge addresses the man’s counsel, “What do you say counsel?” his eyes still  fixed on the innocent little girl.

The lawyer says, “In that case your Honor, we are prepared to go through with full blown trial.”

The Judge sighs, unable to  hide his impatience. “Let’s cut to the chase  here. I will require DNA testing. Since paternity is in question, the result will settle the question more decisively. Do you have any problem with that?”

“That would be fine with us your Honor,” the man’s counsel agrees.

“May I ask for a few minutes to advise my client, your Honor,” the woman’s counsel, pleads.

“Go ahead, counselor,” says the Judge.    

The woman tugs at the sleeve of her counsel and whispers something to him. The woman listens attentively to her lawyer as he talks to her in  measured slow tones.  The little girl wiggles  in her mother’s arms, as she earnestly talks to her lawyer in similar low tones with emphatic hand gestures.

After a few exchanges the woman’s  lawyer  clears his throat, stands, addressing the court, “Your Honor, we have a change of heart in this bitter contest. The defendant doesn’t want her child to be subjected to the indignity of having to undergo DNA testing, young and tender as she is, if her father, denies any paternal kinship with her so be it. My client is pleading no contest to the cause of the plaintiff, and interposes no objection to allow judgment in favor of the plaintiff.”

“Is it true as your counsel says that you are pleading no contest to this suit?” the Judge asks the woman.

The woman rises and replies, “Yes you Honor, as stated well by my counsel. I want this matter behind me so my child and I could get on with our lives.”

“Very well then,” looking well pleased, and  focusing his gaze on the woman, the Judge declares,  “I like to thank you for your gesture, if at all there is any virtue in this self sacrifice, it is the swift termination of this controversy which I anticipated to be long and acrimonious.  What you did today prevented that from happening in this case.”

The woman with sadness,  replies, “You Honor, If you will allow me to speak freely?”

“Please do” the Judge says, “and this is off the record.”

Fixing her eyes at the man in the plaintiff’s table the woman speaks, “ I am not related to this man except for the fact that he and I have been lovers, sexually intimate without benefit of marriage. We enjoy each other’s company and meet regularly. We have no commitments with each other, not until I conceived this little girl and gave birth to her. This man promised me that he would help me support this child, which I was too happy to welcome. Now he doubts he fathered this child and even implies that she could have been sired by any of the men, he says, I’ve been dating, other than him. As the mother of this child I swear I know who her father is, and the man who is not man enough to face up to his responsibility isn’t worth my while. Thank you, your Honor”

The man’s lawyer jumps to his feet and exclaims, “Your Honor please, We cannot let this insult pass. The plaintiff wishes to answer lest we are given the false impression that she is right to obtain sympathy from this court.”

The Judge bores his sight on the counsel and softly says,  “You have already  won in this suit counselor, for that there is no need for you or your client to explain. What she said couldn’t anymore hurt the cause of your client. This woman has already pleaded no contest. For that I gave her the privilege,  to have the final say, so take your seat.”

The Judge shifts his gaze to the man as his counsel sinks in his  seat.

The Judge speaks to the man, “Gentleman, this court rules in your favor. Henceforth, you are relieved of any  and all legal obligation,  with respect to this child, and whatever reciprocal rights and obligation under the law between parent and child is deemed terminated with respect to you and this child. Furthermore and for your full satisfaction this court pronounces judgment that you are not the father of this child. Is this clear to you?”

The man replies, “Yes Honor”, as he steals a glance at the quiet and expressionless woman in the opposite table.

The Judge swings his attention to the woman who now wears a sad and forlorn look.

“As for you Madam,” the Judge exclaims, “I hope that you can find a good husband who can accept and love this child as his own, and man enough to be a man, as you soundly described earlier. I give emphasis to the words “a good husband” not a partner, or lover, or soul mate, or whatever hogwash they now describe all types fornicating relationship outside of marriage. Don’t make the same mistake twice. Be a good mother to this little girl, raise her well and as best as you can. And when she asks for her father tell her she has none! Or whatever you want to tell her, after all you have the last and final say. Now this court is adjourned!”

“All rise please”, the bailiff intones.

The Judge bangs his gavel, with great effort  rises on his feet, hobbles to  enter his chamber, a tired and weary man.

(Photo Image by 123rf.com)