Watching the documentary on Rodney King made me realize how complicated court cases truly are. There is so much information that the judge needs to consider, including eyewitness accounts, evidence, and the testimonies of those being tried. Although one may think eyewitness accounts tell the whole and true story, that is not always the case. Often, when a case has more than one eyewitness, they could all tell different stories. In the Rodney King case, one eyewitness claimed she saw King running away and was then struck down by a stick. Another claimed that King was resisting, which explains why the cops continued to strike King. Both eyewitnesses had similar accounts, but they also had their differences, which can change the outcome of the entire trial. Witnesses were able to provide the case with video evidence. Video footage does not lie, but there are factors that the judge must consider. Although the judge can see in the video that the cops were striking King aggressively, he does not know the events that lead up to what was captured on video. Even video evidence does not tell the whole story. So, to find out that missing information the judge must hear from those involved. He must consider each of the cops' testimonies. In this trial, King did not testify, but if he did, the judge would have had to consider his side of the story as well.
Do you think this case could have been less complicated? What might have occurred if Rodney King testified (pretending the lawyers did not mention his criminal history, swaying the jury)? Do you think both King and the cops were at fault?
I think that if Rodney had testified in the first trial, the second trial could have been avoided. But it's a risk because the defense working for the police could accuse him of resisting before the video began and could stump him due to the lack of evidence.
ReplyDeleteIf Rodney had been in court the judge after hearing his side of the story could either prove the cops innocent or guilty. It really depends.