Letters

<< Previous   of   Next >>   ADVERTISEMENT   HAVE YOUR SAY Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. You’ll need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another. Send it to: E-mail: letters@heraldnet.com Mail: Letters section The Herald P.O. Box 930 Everett, WA 98206 Fax: 425-339-3458 Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson (cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472).   Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 RAPE CASE Cross-examination a constitutional right As the defense attorney in the case, I have been troubled to read the automatic assumptions that the judge did something wrong, the prosecutor was incompetent and, most shocking of all, that a juror involved in the case behaved "lecherously." None of this is accurate. The witness testified on the stand that she had a tattoo across her lower back large enough to cover up injuries so a nurse would not have seen any. I asked the witness to show the tattoo to the jury. After discussing the issue at side-bar, the judge ruled the evidence was appropriate to be shown to the jury since she had raised the issue. As court transcripts show, the witness was instructed not to lower her pants. The witness simply turned and flipped up the back hem of her shirt for a second. The juror seated at the end of the box was unable to see, so the judge instructed the witness to turn slightly and she again flipped up the hem of her shirt so that juror could view the evidence. It is unfortunate that the witness was embarrassed by this but the tattoo was not in a private area of the body. If it had been, the showing of the evidence would have been handled in a different fashion. It is one of the most valued parts of our judicial system that inaccurate testimony may be challenged at trial. Cross-examination is a constitutional right that I would certainly hope this country never chooses to take away from its citizens. The defendant was acquitted, not because of the evidence of the tattoo, but because the complaining witness never, at any point during the investigation or trial, identified the defendant as her attacker. oline Mann Snohomish County Public Defenders Office Everett

1. Waves wash away Explosion's title hopes 2. You've got your pick of Fourth of July fun 3. Snohomish entrepreneur bounces back with new venture 4. Inslee downplays fears Boeing will send second 787 line elsewhere 5. Popular park changing hands 6. Deputies shoot armed man near Arlington 7. Why, governor? 8. Edmonds backs off red-light cameras 9. Vehicle that killed girl was Chevy Astro minivan 10. Arlington buys up more water rights 2 - Top 10 Stories Most Talked about 3 - Top 10 Stories Most Emailed

• Warriors looking for balance • Three Scots vying for QB slot • Jackson looks for another title • Decorated veteran continues to serve as active volunteer • City Council reviewing sign regulations • Wildcats get a peek at newcomers • Lynnwood still in rebuilding mode • Shoreline feels a kindergarten growth spurt • Leave the patriotic pyrotechnics to professionals, cities urge • Trading dollars for kilowatts New PUD energy conservation programs save ... • By John Wolcott SCBJ Editor • Record crowd at Paine Field’s General Aviation Day as FHC Celebrate ... • Celebration of aviation's history and future presented in multiple venue ... • The time is ripe for small businesses to take no prisoners • EPA proposal to regulate global-warming gases would be costly for small ... • Innovation helps the town of Forks to offset tough economy • Powering the people