Muncie Times, Muncie, Delaware County, 18 August 1993 — Page 30

The Muncie Times, Thursday, August 19, 1993, Page 30

Tyson case shows that even a rich black man can't win

by Doc Carney

/\ ur judicial system is I I based on several Vf principles. One is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reaso-

nable doubt.

Another is that the accused is entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers. Yet another principle is the right of the accused to representation by com-

petent counsel.

And all trials are supposed to be conducted by an impartial judge whose job is to insure that everyone involved, prosecution and defense alike, plays by

the same rules.

In the case of Mike Tyson, accused, convicted and sentenced to prison for the rape of Desiree

principles was violated in one way or another. Consider the principle of reasonable doubt. Though lawyers and judges beat this principle to death with legal circumlocution, it is a fairly simple concept. Reasonable doubt is that doubt which any average person might feel when not completely satisfied that the evidence proves

the crime.

In the Tyson case, there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt. Wallace Matthews, writing in New York Newsday, pointed out several areas

of doubt.

First he questioned whe“As in many socalled ‘date rape’ cases, there was a paucity of physical evidence.”

“And in the end it was not the jury that did ‘Iron Mike’ in.” ther the physical evidence supported the rape accusation. He said, “As in many socalled ‘date rape’ cases, there was a paucity of physical evidence. In fact, it could be summed as follows: One sequin on the floor and two microabrasions—the word used by the doctor who examined Washington at Methodist Hospital the next day-near the entrance to Washington’s vagina.”

a woman of delicate stature, who was ‘resisting,’ could have resulted in no more than one sequin being dislodged and two minor abrasions. Surely that is reasonable doubt. Next Matthews questions Washington’s veracity and states his belief that Tyson should have a new trial. “I have been persuaded of this not by the malevolent Mr. Don King or the obnoxious Mr. Alan Dershowitz or the fawning Mr. Montel Williams. I have been persuaded by inconsistencies in the statements of Desiree Washington and her mother, Mary Bell Washington. “But now, there is some real question about the veracity of Washington and/or her mother. On February 18, the affidavit of Wayne Walker, a former football player at

after which he got a phone call from Washington’s father, Donald, who told Walker that Desiree was saying that he had raped

her.

“Somehow, Walker was able to talk the volatile Donald Washington out of going to the police. In an affidavit, Walker claims Washington admitted lying to her father to get herself out of trouble because her father had found out about her and Walker’s tryst. Walker’s affidavit was backed up by statements from his mother and two other people, one who represents himself as a friend of Desiree Washington,” said Matthews. “A month later, Desiree Washington submitted an affidavit denying she ever had sex, consensual or

Walker, although she admits to having dated him in and around Oc-

tober 1989.

“The problem is,” wrote Matthews, “in a pre-trial deposition, Mary Belle Washington testified that in October 1989, Desiree had confided in her that she had lost her virginity to her boyfriend, ‘but it was a mutual thing and then later on, she confided in her father, who flew off the handle.’ Dershowitz (Tyson’s appeals attorney) says the boyfriend in question is Walker.” Matthews concludes that if Walker is the “boyfriend” in question, either “But now, there is some real question about the veracity of Washington and/or her

mother.”

Wallace Matthews

“...he somehow got stuck with a back-water lawyer who was apparently intimidated by the high-pow-ered prosecution.”

Desiree Washington or her mother is lying. Surely that is reasonable doubt. The third principle, that of trial by a jury of his peers, was hotly argued in the days leading up to the trial. The main questions revolved around the racial makeup of the jury. Just what is meant by trial by a jury of one’s peers? In today’s world, peers generally means simply registered citizens of the same city or county. But how can one truly be the peer of a person of the magnitude of Mike Tyson? And in the end it was not the jury that did “Iron Mike” in. In the words of Wallace Matthews, “what really did Tyson in was the simple truth that the jury believed Washington and her mother and disbelieved him. “This was certainly a reasonable conclusion at the time since Washington was composed, lucid and touchingly innocent on the stand, and her mother was heart-wrenchingly wounded over her daughter’s ordeal,” said Matthews. Tyson’s testimony did not contribute positively to his case. His testimony before the jury sometimes contradicted his grand jury testimony. In the words of Matthews, “Tyson was surly, especially when he realized he had been caught in lies between his grand jury and trial testimony by special prosecutor Greg

Garrison. “Tyson was never worse than when, having misstated the color of the outfit Washington wore that night, he disgustedly tossed the garment on the witness table,” said Matthews. The third principle, the right to representation by competent counsel, is, in my opinion, the straw that broke Tyson’s back. His choice of attorney, Vincent Fuller, was miserable. The idea at the time was that big city lawyers would be resented by a local court and jury. So instead of Dershowitz (though he is primarily an appeals attorney, he would have tried the case if asked), or any of dozens of other top notch criminal lawyers available to a person of Tyson’s means, he somehow got stuck with a back-water lawyer who was apparently intimidated by the high-powered prosecution. Fuller’s trial strategy was flawed, his preparation inadequate and his court room performance so poor as to smack of gross incompetence. Matthews said, “And he (Tyson) was submarined by the work of his defense attorney, Vincent Fuller, whose breathtaking ineptitude had to be witnessed to be appreciated.” Tyson’s poor performance on the witness stand also speaks to the incompetence of his attorney, in two ways. First, Tyson was inadequately prepared to give testimony. A competent attorney would have insured that his testimony was previewed in private before his ordeal on the stand. Second, there is the question of whether Tyson (cont. on pg. 31 )

Coventry (R.I.) High School, claims that he and

Wallace Matthews Washington had consen- . — sual sex in October 1989,

Given the delicacy of Washington’s apparel, it is

Washington, each of these difficult to believe that the otherwise, with Wayne

allegedly ‘violent’ rape of