ABC Takes a True-Life Look at Criminal Justice System
Billie
“STATE v.” (6/19/02)
Every day, real-life dramas play out in criminal trials across the country.
Defense attorneys fight for their clients’ freedom, while prosecutors work to
put the accused behind bars. Judges try to keep the playing field level,
weighing the facts and struggling to do the right thing to ensure that justice
is served.
“State v.” -- a new, five-part primetime ABC News series narrated by ABC
News Senior Legal Correspondent Cynthia McFadden -- brings viewers inside the
criminal justice system as never before.
Thanks to unprecedented access, “State v.” follows five different criminal
cases every step of the way, from lawyers’ pre-trial preparations to the
surprising final verdicts.
The series also provides a rare glimpse at what really happens behind the
closed doors of the jury room, as a panel of citizens determines the
defendant’s fate. “State v.” premieres on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19 (10:00-11:00
p.m. ET), and will continue on June 26 and July 3, 10 and 17 on the ABC
Television Network.
A special order from the Arizona Supreme Court allowed “State v.” producers
and crews total access to a series of homicide cases in the state’s Superior
Court in Maricopa County, which includes the city of Phoenix.
Over the course of eighteen months, ABC News watched prosecutors build and try
their cases in court. The public defender’s office, as well as some of the
county’s leading private defense attorneys, let ABC News go inside the
confidential lawyer-client relationship as they developed a defense. Judges
permitted cameras to capture the action not only in their courtrooms, but also
in their chambers.
And in a rare decision, cameras were allowed to watch real juries evaluate the
evidence and try to come to a consensus in what often proves to be a difficult
-- and contentious -- process.
Each episode of “State v.” focuses on a single criminal trial. In the first
two installments, two young men face the possibility of long stints in prison
for crimes they say they are ultimately not responsible for committing.
STATE v. SANTOS (Wednesday, June 19)
After an argument with his roommate, 26-year-old Rudy Santos pulled out a gun
and shot him twice in the head. Santos admits to pulling the trigger, but says
he acted in self-defense. He claims that his roommate, who was high on
methamphetamines, had a gun and threatened to kill him. Santos says he had no
choice but to pull the trigger.
Santos’ defense lawyer, public defender Jerry Hernandez, works night and day
to prepare the case and is close to buckling under the stress of the job. It is
only his third murder trial and he’s up against John Ditsworth, one of the
most experienced homicide lawyers in the county attorney’s office. It is
Ditsworth’s last case before he leaves to become a judge.
Santos decides to take the stand, for he is the only one who can tell the jury
what happened that night. If they believe him, he walks free. If they don’t,
he could spend twenty-two years in prison.
STATE v. MACNAB (Wednesday, June 26)
Twenty-two-year-old Guillermo Macnab never had as much as a speeding ticket.
One summer night, he and his cousin, Michael -- who were as close as brothers
-- were driving to a casino. At about 2:00 a.m., while driving through a poorly
marked construction site, Macnab veered off the road and smashed through a
barricade. His cousin was killed.
Tests showed that Macnab had been drinking and was well over the legal limit.
The victim’s family is adamant that this was an accident, not a crime. The
State, however, believes Macnab’s behavior was reckless and decides to
prosecute him for manslaughter. If convicted, he faces seven to twenty-one
years in prison.
Macnab is devastated and wracked with guilt over the death of his cousin. In
the year since the accident he has gone from an easygoing kid to a tortured
young man. He has attempted suicide and been in and out of psychiatric
hospitals.
Macnab’s parents have taken out two second mortgages to hire Jess Lorona, one
of Phoenix’s pre-eminent and most expensive defense attorneys. Lorona's
defense is that, though Macnab was legally impaired, the poorly marked
construction site was the cause of the crash.
Bolstering his argument is the fact that just five minutes before his
client’s accident, another car with a sober driver drove into the very same
barricade. The prosecution argues that, regardless of the condition of the
road, Macnab’s drunk driving cannot be excused. The case hinges on whether
the jury feels enough sympathy for Macnab to find him not guilty.
STATE v. PELOFSKE (Wednesday, July 3)
One night, Elizabeth Pelofske’s fiancé, a convicted felon and gang member,
came home to rape her best friend and roommate. Pelofske, a salesperson and
mother of two, abandoned her friend and sided with her boyfriend. Once he went
to prison, she schemed with him to hire a hit man to kill the friend so she
wouldn’t testify against him.
There was only one problem -- the hit man was an undercover cop. Pelofske was
charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder and is facing a life
sentence.
The State has offered her a plea of five to ten years, but Pelofske, despite
overwhelming evidence, refuses to admit guilt. This is one of seventy cases for
her court-appointed lawyer. He has little time to look at her case and advises
her that she stands a good chance at trial.
However the investigator assigned to the case, former homicide cop Art
Hanratty, disagrees. He is convinced that, if she goes to trial, she will be
convicted. He repeatedly tries to convince Pelofske to admit guilt.
Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon feels that a five-year sentence would be
sufficient punishment and wants Pelofske to take the plea. The question is
whether Aubuchon and Hanratty will separately convince Pelofske to accept
responsibility for her crime, or if Pelofske will insist on rolling the dice
and going before a jury.
STATE v. CHAPPELL (Wednesday, July 10)
Daniel Chappell had never been in trouble with the law, until one night in
October of 2000, when he slipped out of the bedroom that he shared with his
wife, found a meat cleaver and struck her twice in the back of the head. All
the while, their young son was asleep in the room across the hall.
After daybreak, a police officer driving through the desert pulled to the side
of the road and discovered Jessica Chappell’s naked body lying in the brush.
During the course of a lengthy interrogation, Daniel confessed to committing
the crime. But he may not have been the one who ended his wife’s life.
The Chappells had a rocky relationship and Daniel had a girlfriend named Laura.
Daniel’s lawyer, Lynn Burns, has spent months working on the case. She thinks
there is a good chance that Laura may have committed the murder. Her theory is
that Daniel was madly in love with Laura and confessed to keep her from going
to prison. Burns points to journal entries that indicate Laura may have known
about the crime.
Also, the medical examiner tells the defense the depths of the wounds indicate
that it’s possible someone other than Daniel could have swung the cleaver.
Prosecutor Keith Vercauteren is convinced that Daniel is the murderer and wants
him to spend the rest of his life in prison.
STATE v. BARRAZA (Wednesday, July 17)
Mayra Barraza was seventeen when she agreed to a date with 47-year-old Gregorio
Espinoza. Espinoza, who lived with his common-law wife and their daughter,
promised to take Barraza out dancing. On the evening of May 4, Espinoza, who
had been drinking, took Barraza to his house. Only the two of them know what
happened next.
The following day, Espinoza's brother found him dead in the bedroom, with
multiple stab wounds. The police discovered a piece of paper with Barraza's
phone number on it in Espinoza's truck and brought her in for questioning.
Initially she denied any involvement in the crime. But after discussion with
family and friends, Barraza told the police that she had, in fact, stabbed
Espinoza. She said she had no choice because he tried to rape her.
Barraza's attorneys argue that she acted in self-defense and point to the fact
that the victim, while drunk, had raped his own wife six months earlier. The
State says it was a premeditated “thrill kill” and points to the fact that
the week before the killing, Barraza told friends about a bizarre desire to
murder a man. The jurors must decide whether the soft-spoken teen is capable of
planning a cold-blooded killing.
ABCNEWS.com, the 24-hour Internet operation of ABC News, will feature
interactive and multimedia programming to complement the five-part series.
Phyllis McGrady is the Senior Vice President, Early Morning, Primetime and News
Program Development for ABC News. Rudy Bednar is the executive producer of
“State v.” Michael Bicks is the producer. Susan Kriskey and Laura Viddy are
the field producers. (CLOSED-CAPTIONED)
"STUPIDITY IS NOT A HANDICAP. Park elsewhere!"
AGC FAQ and FUN STUFF:
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/mainpages/agcfaq.html
BLIND ITEM REHASH:
http://www.dreamwater.net/agc/blinditems/mainpage.html
moe
wrong with the system. I can't wait for ABC to tell me what my feeble
mind cannot understand. thanks for the heads up so I can schedule a
root canal during this hard hitting report.