The first is that while the actions of Ms. Abramson may have clouded the jury's judgment with respect to the defense team's actions, she turned down the opportunity to absolve herself or the team of wrongdoing. Defendant privilege is intended to protect witnesses such as Ms. Abramson from prosecution or punishment to them. However, a witness invoking privilege does not invalidate the entire trial. The mistrial motion, had is succeeded, would have justified defense counsel impropriety as a means of gaining a retrial for clients. Furthermore, in this instance Ms. Abramson's invocation of privilege was not made known to the jury and therefore was not taken into consideration in their decision. She could have testified to refute the account of Mr. Vicary, had she so desired.
The second reason that the outcome was sound was because the brothers did not receive the...
This type of impropriety may have compromised Abramson's credibility, but ultimately that her responsibility and that of her client. The impropriety makes it unreasonable to return a death sentence, but given the jury's decision of guilt the life sentence was well within reason. It could be argued that Abramson's actions and subsequent use of privilege may have saved her client a death sentence, since without her actions a conviction may have occurred in the first trial, at which point a death sentence would have been more likely.
Works Cited:
No author. (2009). Privilege against self-incrimination -- witness privilege, criminal defendant privilege. Jrank.org. Retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://law.jrank.org/pages/9426/Privilege-against-Self-Incrimination.html
Pergament, Rachel. (no date). The Menendez Brothers. TruTV. Retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/menendez/punishment_18.html
People of the State of California v. Erik Galen Menendez and Joseph Lyle Menendez. Retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas25.htm
