by Laura DeRossi
On December 1, 2009, John Gotti walked out of a courtroom as a free
man. For a fourth time, a jury failed to come to a decision
regarding the charges against the head of the Gambino crime family.
Four separate groups of twelve people failed to find that a known
mobster was guilty (or not guilty) of federal charges of racketeering
and murder conspiracy.
This failure to convict a known criminal shows the problems of the
jury system, and the difficulty in getting twelve members of the
public to agree on a person’s fate. With mobsters it is often even
more complex. Often having enormous resources, both legitimate and
illegitimate, mobsters inspire hatred, admiration and most
importantly, fear. While there is a logic to having members of the
public, which the accused is assumed to have wronged, decide the fate
of the accused, there are also significant problems with this system.
As shown by the Gotti trials, juries can fail. While I am not privy
to the evidence supporting the charges against Gotti, I have little
doubt that Gotti is guilty of something, if not the current charges.
I am sure the majority of the jury members felt the same way.
However, when trying a man of such substantial notoriety as John
Gotti, the government and the jury have a problem. There are myriad
stories of the mob reaching out to jurors, attempting to influence
them with money or threats. Even when a juror is not approached, he
or she is often convinced that others have been. Therefore, the jury
system will never properly function so long as the accused holds such
influence over the very people who are supposed to impartially decide
his fate.
The Gotti trial is an example of the failure of the jury system.
While I do not know of a better system available, the one currently in
place too often fails to provide the justice that is sought by those
within the system. There is no morality in a system that allows for
jury tampering, or a system that fails to provide justice when a known
criminal is present in the courtroom.
