Taking a Stand: Potter’s innocence is no big surprise
When the jury retired to deliberate on the evidence heard during the two-day trial of District Attorney General Dale Potter last week, the speculation began as to what the jury would decide.
There were as many opinions as people standing outside the courthouse most of Wednesday evening as the jury embarked on its four-and-a-half-hour marathon session. Shortly after the jury went out, I was approached by the defendant who wanted to know my take on the trial. I told him I figured they would acquit him on both charges, a prediction which proved correct.
I say “prediction” in that there’s no way to accurately forecast a verdict since each jury is made up of different personalities. And before you ask, I was being honest in my assessment. Had I believed they would find Potter guilty, I would have likely come back with an answer such as “I’ll come see ya’ in the big house” or “I’ll see what I can do about getting you a route down at the paper” being I have a somewhat warped sense of humor.
The case itself was totally straight-forward. There was no debate on the main facts. Potter admitted he asked Samantha Salamone to write a letter to the editor before he re-opened her child support case. What it all came down to was a matter of opinion. Were his actions fitting of a felony conviction?
Myself, I could not convince myself directing Salamone to write a letter to the editor was a criminal offense. Yes, doing it was wrong, but a felony?
My opinion was met with disagreement by many I talked to. And, given the fact the jury took that long in deliberation, I think some of the jurors also may have leaned at first toward some kind of conviction, although the outcome convinces me most began the deliberation thinking acquittal since the majority is rarely swayed during deliberations.
Now, had he demanded money or sex in return for child support enforcement, my opinion would be different. Sure, a case could be made that he was seeking some type of benefit, but a letter to the editor? It just seems too trivial to warrant a felony conviction.
Could there have ever been a conviction on the charges? It’s a hard call seeing, once again, it was an opinion call by the jury. I do believe, however, there were some key errors during the prosecution, one of which was the failure to have Salamone in the courtroom during most of the trial.
Her absence surely had an effect on the jurors since Potter’s accuser was only in the courtroom during the closing minutes of the trial. In most cases I’ve seen, either the victim or a member of the victim’s family is sitting at the prosecution table or in the audience all during the trial, giving jurors a human connection.
Also, the children, whom the child support in question would have benefited, were never in the courtroom. By the time prosecutors tried to present the children as victims in the case, it was too late as the defense was ready to counter.
Salamone’s storming out during final arguments probably didn’t help prosecutors either. There likely should have been more coaching as to how she should have maintained her composure in the courtroom, going to the extent of even having a person in charge of monitoring her behavior. There were points where she was shaking her head and reacting to Potter’s testimony from the gallery. Her actions, I noticed, were being watched closely by many jurors.
Should this case have been tried? That’s a tough call. In one sense I believe it was important to show the public there is accountability for the actions of public officials while at the same time I believe we need to focus our efforts on the real crimes out there, of which there are plenty to choose.
(Duane Sherrill is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].)