Andrew Cohen: Maybe We Should Have A Trial Before We Hang Raymond Clark III

By: Andrew Cohen
Topics: Daily Blotter

(CBS)

Story contributed by CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen.

NEW YORK (CBS) On Facebook last week, an enraged "friend" who shall remain nameless lashed out wildly in her status report against Raymond Clark III, the man accused of murdering Yale University student Annie Le earlier this month.

My pal evidently wanted all of her Facebook friends to know that she wanted Clark executed now, right away, for the heinous crime for which he has been charged.

Never mind that Clark hasn't yet been tried, much less convicted; never mind that he's not yet been convicted, never mind sentenced.

Never mind that my "friend" lives 3,000 miles away from Connecticut and wouldn't know a prosecutor from a prosciutto. She wanted it done. Over. Period. And she's not alone. The court of public opinion, from sea to shining sea, has already reached its verdict against Clark before a single substantive hearing has been held in the case. The verdict is guilty. And the trial is yet to come.

Welcome to the world of Clark's defense attorneys, who now are left to defend a man who apparently has lost whatever presumption of innocence still exists today in America.

All through the course of the last week, up to and including the moment when Clark was arrested (with television cameras rolling, of course), anonymous law enforcement sources have leaked incriminating information (whether it's true or not is another story) to willing reporters, all of whom were competing with one another to "advance" the Le murder mystery.

(CBS)

Photo: Annie Le and Raymond Clark III

Clark's DNA was reportedly found where Le's body was discovered, one unnamed official told a journalist. Clark had "defensive wounds," another unidentified source told reporters.

And here's a passage straight from an Associated Press report: "The evidence is so overwhelming that police believe they don't necessarily have to uncover Clark's motive for the killing to convince jurors of his guilt, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing."

These "sources" can't identify themselves "because the investigation is ongoing" but they can reveal the conclusions the investigation allegedly reaches. They can contaminate the potential jury pool by proclaiming their case "overwhelming" but they don't have to show their faces and stand behind their words.

It's no wonder that Clark's attorneys now are talking about opening a legal ethics case into the way prosecutors and the police have trampled upon Clark's fair trial rights, and his constitutionally-protected presumption of innocence.

The Clark murder case cries out for a good judge, a strong one, who will immediately issue and then enforce a gag order that would stop the out-of-court whispering.

The defendant—any defendant- deserves a fair trial from jurors who are willing to have an open mind about the evidence for or against him. How about putting that down as your status today on Facebook?

(CBS)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. He covers legal issues for CBS News, CBS News Radio, and hundreds of television and radio affiliates around the country. He is a Murrow-Award-winning "recovering attorney" who has provided commentary and analysis for the network since 1997.

23 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 23 Comments


by chalcogens1 October 4, 2009 4:40 PM EDT: Dear Mr. Cohen,

I have now read several of your columns, and I am impressed with your commitment to civil liberties. Allow me to expand on my previous comment. The Duke lacrosse case featured massive pretrial publicity, including perp walks, which you seem to despise as much as I do. The whole case is best understood as instances of infringement on the rights of the defendants (for example the phony photo lineup) and on the rights of the unindicted players (the demand for DNA from all forty-six white lacrosse players). The most frightening aspect of this case is the complicity of the police in aidin DA Nifong's misdeeds. Yet, your column of three years ago does not touch upon these matters. I would urge you to reexamine this affair, perhaps when the civil cases bring some of these issues front and center.; Reply to this comment


by chalcogens1 September 29, 2009 11:00 AM EDT: Dear Mr. Cohen,

Your points about the problems of so much pretrial publicity are very well taken. Yet, you did not seem as concerned about this issue when you wrote about the Duke lacrosse case. Would you care to explain what is different?; Reply to this comment


by Newsy111 September 27, 2009 1:14 PM EDT: How original. Andrew Cohen shows sympathy and support for the vicious maniac killer in a pathetic attempt to be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. The crime, committed by Raymond Clark, is vile. Your column is asinine.; Reply to this comment


by winteralfs September 25, 2009 5:04 PM EDT: Likewise, Clark is presumed innocent from a legal standpoint because our legal system is mandated to start from neutrality. Not so the public. The public is allowed to be emotional, hurt, scared, angry, outraged, sickened. This is WHY we have a legal system that is meant to be neutral. Because people WILL be sickened and angry by murder, and looking for someone to blame. It's natural and human to be outraged and emotional. So to castigate the public for looking for a place to aim their anger when an atrocious murder happens is simply illogical. We have a court system in place because we already know this will happen. It seems bizarre for a legal commentary to seem surprised that the public is not neutral about this. The courts can presume Clark legally innocent until proven guilty, but folks who look at the images of a beautiful young woman - now dead - simply won't turn off their emotions and their minds until his court case is over.

-------

Well said. I would add that its a little disturbing, and possible in bad taste, to write an entire article about this case and not mention Annie or her story once. This is why the public hates lawyers. They intellectualize the incident to the point of abstraction, get offended by the very understandable, emotional response from the public to a horrendous crime, and generally handle the story in an insensitive manner to better illustrate all the abstract points they are interested in making. This center of this is Annie, and it would be nice of Cohen to have acknowledged that with at least a couple of lines.; Reply to this comment


by yeah_okay September 25, 2009 7:48 AM EDT: 1. I find it creepy and odd that friend is written in quotes in this article. Do the quotes signify that this person is not actually a friend, but something else entirely? Or that this person is no longer a friend because their facebook status update offended? Or because in the passion of the moment, when reading of a young girl's murder, they temporarily ignored the law stating that a person is innocent until proven guilty and cried out for what in the moment they perceived as justice, and are therefore no longer any friend to the likes of Andrew Cohen? (aside: I find it amusing to think that Andrew Cohen, Chief Legal Analyst, reviews his friends' facebook status, takes it to heart, and hauls out the big "quotes" to indicate displeasure. Tee hee!)

2. Innoncent until proven guilty is a legal construct, not a social one. In reality, a person is either innocent or guilty of a crime from the outset. For instance, OJ Simpson was found legally innocent of murder, but it doesn't actually make him innocent of murder, and the public is well aware of this.

Likewise, Clark is presumed innocent from a legal standpoint because our legal system is mandated to start from neutrality. Not so the public. The public is allowed to be emotional, hurt, scared, angry, outraged, sickened. This is WHY we have a legal system that is meant to be neutral. Because people WILL be sickened and angry by murder, and looking for someone to blame. It's natural and human to be outraged and emotional. So to castigate the public for looking for a place to aim their anger when an atrocious murder happens is simply illogical. We have a court system in place because we already know this will happen. It seems bizarre for a legal commentary to seem surprised that the public is not neutral about this. The courts can presume Clark legally innocent until proven guilty, but folks who look at the images of a beautiful young woman - now dead - simply won't turn off their emotions and their minds until his court case is over.

3. The media does everything it can to provoke emotion (usually fear and anger) in the public. The media chose the creepiest possible picture of Clark off his facebook page on purpose. They chose the sweetest possible pictures of the victim. They emphasized her wedding date, they emphasized Clark's alleged anger issues with ex-partners --- all to create public fear and anger towards Clark. Google news stories and you will see this over and over again. Andrew Cohen, YOU are a member of the media. Why are you writing this pretend-shock-at-"friend's"-emotional-response commentary, implying the public is to blame, when every snip of information given was communicated TO the public through your own organization, the media? Write a commentary to them about fair reporting instead.; Reply to this comment


by huonguyen1 September 23, 2009 7:33 PM EDT: ok...ok... you all... what are all of these debating about?

Think and think.... if any of you who is defensing for Ray Clark and think that he is innocent, then my question to you guy is: "if he did not involve in this crime scene, why was his DNA found where Annie's mushy body was found?"; Reply to this comment


by winteralfs September 23, 2009 4:22 PM EDT: I personally know some of the Clarks. I am not talking about Ray personally...I am talking about his family. Has it occurred to you that maybe they are not talking to the press because they have been advised not to? They most likely have an attorney because of their relationship to the suspect. I have the deepest sympathy for Annie's family, but I have sympathy for the Clarks as well.

--------

Thanks for the response. I hope you can understand how difficult it may be to find sympathy for the Clarks when it was their son, brother, and boyfriend that most likely committed this crime thereby causing all this sorrow and misery. And over what? Dirty cage protocol or some possible crush? This is why you assault and murder Annie so violently? Thereby taking away everything she may have accomplished, taking away her dignity and ruin all her enormous potential, both personal and professional? 5 days before her wedding?

I still suspect the Clarks may have known something was amiss. with all the coverage, and how Clark must have been behaving, as well as the marks and the different clothes he came home with, it just seems to me they suspected he was involved, at the least. I would like to think that if something similar happened to me, I would do "the right thing" and come forward, not the thing must likely to protect myself, or in this case the Clarks. If the lawyer is telling them not to say anything, why is that? To better protect themselves, and Ray of course. They are still doing what is best for themselves, not what is best for Annie's family. Hence my judgment. Until I see behavior, or hear words spoken to indicate true heartfelt remorse, I will judge them by what actions they have taken up to this point. Which amounts to nothing.; Reply to this comment

by winteralfs September 22, 2009 11:43 PM EDT

by oliver1229 September 22, 2009 9:47 PM EDT
Winteralfs, you are nuts. The Clarks have shown zero remorse? Really?? Where do you get that? Has it occured to you that the Clarks are not speaking becauase they are hurting too? The Clarks are going though hell. Put yourself in their shoes. Do you have some kind of proof that they knew what happened? Maybe you should think about what you are typing before you type it.

----

Alright Olivier let me ask you this. What have the Clarks done up to this point to possible indicate any remorse. I judge Ray and his family by their actions. If your asking weather I think Ray has shown remorse by his actions I say No. After this crime, he had substantial time to show remorse through his action, were there any "oh no, what have I doe moments?" Quite the oposite Ray spent time with her in the lab, covering up his crime , Hiding the body and treating Annie like worthless garbage, stuffing her in a crawl space and desecrating her body, cleaning the lab to ruin all evidence against him, changing clothes, lie to police, refusing to answer questions, returning to the scene to further remove evidence, and finally continuing his day to day life with no apparent problem, playing softball and eating meals with his loved ones as if nothing happened, and waiting to see if cops could find him. Where was the taking responsibility for his actions? DO you actually think he has shown any remorse through his actions?

As to his family, again I judge them through their actions. What have we seen? I haven't seen a thing. Any contact with Annie's family? Any apology or remorse conveyed? You cant tell me they didn't suspect something was off with Ray once Annie went missing. That they didn't suspect he may be involved. Again zero comments with police, zero contact with Annie's family, no statements to the press. Everything has been centered around protecting Ray Clark. Unless you have information I don't, where do you see any remorse displayed in their actions? Please enlighten me.

The Clark family is responsible for this crime, 4 of them worked in the lab, and some of Rays guilt has to rub off on all of them ( assuming all the evidence has been accurately reported.) Annie and her family are the victims here, not the Clarks. What is it that you see that I don't?

Reply to this comment


by oliver1229 September 23, 2009 12:54 PM EDT: I personally know some of the Clarks. I am not talking about Ray personally...I am talking about his family. Has it occurred to you that maybe they are not talking to the press because they have been advised not to? They most likely have an attorney because of their relationship to the suspect. I have the deepest sympathy for Annie's family, but I have sympathy for the Clarks as well.

by jbleeii September 22, 2009 10:23 PM EDT

Give me a break, DNA evidence is 100%. He doesn't deserve a fair trial when the DNA links him to the crime scene. If anyone else had entered the same lab in which she was murdered then perhaps the a defense team would deserve the right to speak. When asked if he knew where she was right now...he asked for an attorney. Hmmm....GUILTY. We need more people that see black and white, not shades of grey.

Reply to this comment


by dreamingway September 26, 2009 7:55 AM EDT: Your comment exemplifies everything that is wrong with the "black and white" view of things.

And "He doesn't deserve a fair trial" exemplifies, specifically, everything that is wrong an uneducated electorate.


by cladagh September 22, 2009 9:26 PM EDT: "Contaminate the jury pool"? (((groan))) Oh ye of little faith in the people who sit on juries. Time and time again, we become aware of how people take their responsibility very seriously. And a few 'editorial comments' by crime-writing journalists can not possibly overwhelm a prospective juror to the point that they refuse to listen to actual evidence at trial. Furthermore, the crime that Clark is accused of is so incredibly offensive that it is reasonable to expect outrage from the public. Perhaps some people (like your 'friend'), engage in a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric, but this type of murder touches all of us where-we-live. It's frightening. So, spare us the civics lesson. No one is going to storm the jail and string up Clark from the largest tree in the town square.; Reply to this comment