When it comes to figuring out whether to pick a jury or having a
judge decide a person's fate, Joey Jackson says there are a lot of factors to consider, especially when the client is a police officer.
The national mood regarding excessive police force has been driven and largely influenced by cases such Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Laquan McDonald in ChicaWalter Scott in South Carolina — the list goes on. These cases and their deadly results are unique, and have placed a spotlight on overly aggressive policing. In short, the world is watching and a significant degree of mistrust exists for police within communities across the country. Yet and still, very few people in a jury pool view police officers as murderers, and those that do are dismissed from jury service.
While I likely would have opted to go before a judge, the strategy of allowing a jury to decide does have advantages. Prosecutors have to convince all 12 jurors that Liang committed a crime. This could be a challenge as it's often difficult to get 12 people from 12 different walks of life to reach a consensus on what will be a hotly contested issue. Liang's team will try hard to convince the jury to give him the benefit of the doubt by showing that he was a good officer, who was just trying to do his job and get home alive. In short, their theory will be that this was a tragic accident in a dimly let stairwell that doesn't amount to a crime.
Liang's lawyers have also indicated that he'll take the stand. While it can be risky to put a defendant on the stand, Liang's not like most.
