"Mr. Seiwald, you are here to testify on account of the charges pending against you. Anything you say in a court of law can be used against you. Do you swear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
“I swear.”
“Will you testify to the best of your ability to produce an accurate and truthful account of the events that transpired on August 17th, 2014?”
“Yes.”
“Jurors, please take your seats. Mr. Thurmond, you may begin your cross-examination.”
“Thank you, your Honor. Jurors, I have the responsibility of prosecuting the defendant in this case, one Mr. Seiwald, who is charged with willful battery and obstruction of justice regarding destruction of evidence. I also have the pleasure of presenting in front of you our formerly-esteemed and now-infamous congressman and representative from the 12th district, Mr. Seiwald. Curiously enough, his office tells me he is on an “undisclosed leave of absence,” though now you are all privy to the kinds of disclosure he has worked so hard to conceal.”
“Speculation, your Honor.”
“Overruled. Mr. Thurmond, please proceed quickly and begin the questioning of the witness.”
“Thank you, your Honor. As I was alluding to, Mr. Seiwald, where were you on the 17th?”
“I was in constituent meetings the entire day.”
“But you were, in fact in a car between 2 and 2:30pm correct?”
“If you say so.”
“Your Honor, defendant is dodging the question.”
“Mr. Seiwald, answer the question.”
“Yes,” he replied.
“Were you present during the incident that occurred on August 17th, at approximately 2:17pm?”
“I suppose so.”
“Did you, or did you not, see a bicyclist approach your car at this time.”
“I maintain that I did not see anyone.”
“Did you, or did you not, open the door willfully and neglectfully into the path of an oncoming cyclist?”
“I am unaware that I did such a thing.”
“Is that a no, Mr. Seiwald?”
“Yes, it’s a no. Negative. No go. Nada.”
“Did you know the plaintiff prior to this incident?”
“No.”
“Mr. Seiwald, who is your driver?”
“He is standing right there.”
“Why did he testify that he was the one who opened the door?”
“I have no answer to that question.”
“Because it would incriminate you?”
“Judge, Your honor. Leading the witness.”
“Sustained. Mr. Thurmond, this is your first warning. Stay on topic.”
The trial went as planned, with the appearance of propriety, when the judge was in Mr. Seiwald’s back pocket. The courtroom had the staid atmosphere of a hospital, despite the promising introduction by Thurmond.
“Why did Larry Lee, your driver, not show up to work for three days?”
“He had scheduled vacation three weeks in advance.”
“Is it not true that he rarely takes vacation?”
“Maybe.”
“Judge, defendant is refusing to answer the question.”
“Mr. Seiwald, answer truthfully.”
“It’s true, I guess.”
“And why is that?”
“Because he doesn’t have a wife,” Mr. Seiwald said, to the laughter of those present.
“And it’s not because you fired him?”
“No. He still works for me.”
“But checking his paystubs for the month in question…”
“Yes?”
“He was not paid for August 20th, 21st, and the 22nd.”
“That could be a payroll error.”
“True, but how coincidental. The first three business days after the accident, the driver who you said caused the accident isn’t paid by your company. Don’t dismiss this detail, jurors. This is a man who likes to be in control. When things go wrong, the people around him feel the heat. What we are seeing and hearing from Mr. Seiwald is a pattern of intimidation—and this starts immediately.
This fact—this incontrovertible fact—that Mr. Lee was not paid three days after the incident shows something, ladies and gentlemen. It means that he was being punished for something. But what?”
“Objection, your honor. Leading question.”
“Overruled. Continue, Mr. Thurmond.”
“Mr. Seiwald controls each and every detail of his life, of that we are certain. There are detailed payroll records of every person who has worked for him, for ten years back. For some reason, he keeps record of even individual tax returns of his employees—who knows how he got his hands on those?”
“…”
“The point is we see a pattern of coercion—to the point where not getting what he wants is not acceptable to the congressman. But here it is. The congressman is not on trial here. Jurors, see Mr. Seiwald as an ordinary citizen, like you and me. A citizen capable of mistakes. All we ask is for the law to be applied correctly, your Honor. No one is above the law. Not even a congressional representative.”
Howard thought of power in the most tangible way possible. Mr. Thurmond was speaking truth to power, yes, but he was part of the reason why power manifest itself in the form of a hopelessly corrupt justice system.
As long as white people focus on white crimes and white criminals, the dreams of black justice are delayed and deferred. And we all wear the mask of pretension—we play the game when it is stacked against us.
...
“The problem is that he tried to cover his tracks. This amounts to obstruction of justice in the purest sense possible. Consider: three separate emails discussing possible alibis for the congressman. Consider the fact that for all practical purposes, Mr. Lee was fired for at least three days subsequent to the accident. Consider the evidence, ladies and gentlemen. What is more likely? A 20-year-old taxi veteran mistakenly opens the door in the path of an oncoming bicyclist, or that a 40-year-old man late to a meeting just simply doesn’t look or pay attention?
We live in a society where attention is constantly being taken away from us. How many times have you been staring at a smartphone while walking? It may even be the first thing you do after you get out of your car.
The fact is we live in a modern society. The world is spinning along at a million miles per hour. Everything’s connected but now all the rules are jumbled up; our laws simply didn’t account for deleted electronic mail in the past. But now they do. And they account for willful negligence and obstruction of justice, two charges that are in front of you today.
Here is what happened. Mr. Seiwald was late to a meeting. He was either checking his email or dialing into a call as he was in the car. He opens the door and hits the plaintiff, causing abdominal and shoulder injuries. We believe he was distracted, and we have evidence that Mr. Seiwald’s secretary went to a phone screen repair shop the week after the incident. So he dropped his phone, or his phone was knocked out of his hand by the collision.
What we are trying to piece together is why electronic communication was sent and deleted, regarding his whereabouts on August 17th and that weekend. We are trying to understand why there are now a whole host of missing campaign finance files from his secretary’s filing desk. Why the invoice from Whole Screen Mobile, in the words of the defendant’s lawyer “doesn’t exist.” We don’t even have cell phone records, because the carrier mysteriously had “server problems” that weekend.
These may seem like inconsequential details, but they are hugely important to the outcome of this case. You decide, jurors. Do we have a pattern of intimidation and evidence destruction? Our team believes this beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution rests.”
“I swear.”
“Will you testify to the best of your ability to produce an accurate and truthful account of the events that transpired on August 17th, 2014?”
“Yes.”
“Jurors, please take your seats. Mr. Thurmond, you may begin your cross-examination.”
“Thank you, your Honor. Jurors, I have the responsibility of prosecuting the defendant in this case, one Mr. Seiwald, who is charged with willful battery and obstruction of justice regarding destruction of evidence. I also have the pleasure of presenting in front of you our formerly-esteemed and now-infamous congressman and representative from the 12th district, Mr. Seiwald. Curiously enough, his office tells me he is on an “undisclosed leave of absence,” though now you are all privy to the kinds of disclosure he has worked so hard to conceal.”
“Speculation, your Honor.”
“Overruled. Mr. Thurmond, please proceed quickly and begin the questioning of the witness.”
“Thank you, your Honor. As I was alluding to, Mr. Seiwald, where were you on the 17th?”
“I was in constituent meetings the entire day.”
“But you were, in fact in a car between 2 and 2:30pm correct?”
“If you say so.”
“Your Honor, defendant is dodging the question.”
“Mr. Seiwald, answer the question.”
“Yes,” he replied.
“Were you present during the incident that occurred on August 17th, at approximately 2:17pm?”
“I suppose so.”
“Did you, or did you not, see a bicyclist approach your car at this time.”
“I maintain that I did not see anyone.”
“Did you, or did you not, open the door willfully and neglectfully into the path of an oncoming cyclist?”
“I am unaware that I did such a thing.”
“Is that a no, Mr. Seiwald?”
“Yes, it’s a no. Negative. No go. Nada.”
“Did you know the plaintiff prior to this incident?”
“No.”
“Mr. Seiwald, who is your driver?”
“He is standing right there.”
“Why did he testify that he was the one who opened the door?”
“I have no answer to that question.”
“Because it would incriminate you?”
“Judge, Your honor. Leading the witness.”
“Sustained. Mr. Thurmond, this is your first warning. Stay on topic.”
The trial went as planned, with the appearance of propriety, when the judge was in Mr. Seiwald’s back pocket. The courtroom had the staid atmosphere of a hospital, despite the promising introduction by Thurmond.
“Why did Larry Lee, your driver, not show up to work for three days?”
“He had scheduled vacation three weeks in advance.”
“Is it not true that he rarely takes vacation?”
“Maybe.”
“Judge, defendant is refusing to answer the question.”
“Mr. Seiwald, answer truthfully.”
“It’s true, I guess.”
“And why is that?”
“Because he doesn’t have a wife,” Mr. Seiwald said, to the laughter of those present.
“And it’s not because you fired him?”
“No. He still works for me.”
“But checking his paystubs for the month in question…”
“Yes?”
“He was not paid for August 20th, 21st, and the 22nd.”
“That could be a payroll error.”
“True, but how coincidental. The first three business days after the accident, the driver who you said caused the accident isn’t paid by your company. Don’t dismiss this detail, jurors. This is a man who likes to be in control. When things go wrong, the people around him feel the heat. What we are seeing and hearing from Mr. Seiwald is a pattern of intimidation—and this starts immediately.
This fact—this incontrovertible fact—that Mr. Lee was not paid three days after the incident shows something, ladies and gentlemen. It means that he was being punished for something. But what?”
“Objection, your honor. Leading question.”
“Overruled. Continue, Mr. Thurmond.”
“Mr. Seiwald controls each and every detail of his life, of that we are certain. There are detailed payroll records of every person who has worked for him, for ten years back. For some reason, he keeps record of even individual tax returns of his employees—who knows how he got his hands on those?”
“…”
“The point is we see a pattern of coercion—to the point where not getting what he wants is not acceptable to the congressman. But here it is. The congressman is not on trial here. Jurors, see Mr. Seiwald as an ordinary citizen, like you and me. A citizen capable of mistakes. All we ask is for the law to be applied correctly, your Honor. No one is above the law. Not even a congressional representative.”
Howard thought of power in the most tangible way possible. Mr. Thurmond was speaking truth to power, yes, but he was part of the reason why power manifest itself in the form of a hopelessly corrupt justice system.
As long as white people focus on white crimes and white criminals, the dreams of black justice are delayed and deferred. And we all wear the mask of pretension—we play the game when it is stacked against us.
...
“The problem is that he tried to cover his tracks. This amounts to obstruction of justice in the purest sense possible. Consider: three separate emails discussing possible alibis for the congressman. Consider the fact that for all practical purposes, Mr. Lee was fired for at least three days subsequent to the accident. Consider the evidence, ladies and gentlemen. What is more likely? A 20-year-old taxi veteran mistakenly opens the door in the path of an oncoming bicyclist, or that a 40-year-old man late to a meeting just simply doesn’t look or pay attention?
We live in a society where attention is constantly being taken away from us. How many times have you been staring at a smartphone while walking? It may even be the first thing you do after you get out of your car.
The fact is we live in a modern society. The world is spinning along at a million miles per hour. Everything’s connected but now all the rules are jumbled up; our laws simply didn’t account for deleted electronic mail in the past. But now they do. And they account for willful negligence and obstruction of justice, two charges that are in front of you today.
Here is what happened. Mr. Seiwald was late to a meeting. He was either checking his email or dialing into a call as he was in the car. He opens the door and hits the plaintiff, causing abdominal and shoulder injuries. We believe he was distracted, and we have evidence that Mr. Seiwald’s secretary went to a phone screen repair shop the week after the incident. So he dropped his phone, or his phone was knocked out of his hand by the collision.
What we are trying to piece together is why electronic communication was sent and deleted, regarding his whereabouts on August 17th and that weekend. We are trying to understand why there are now a whole host of missing campaign finance files from his secretary’s filing desk. Why the invoice from Whole Screen Mobile, in the words of the defendant’s lawyer “doesn’t exist.” We don’t even have cell phone records, because the carrier mysteriously had “server problems” that weekend.
These may seem like inconsequential details, but they are hugely important to the outcome of this case. You decide, jurors. Do we have a pattern of intimidation and evidence destruction? Our team believes this beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution rests.”
No comments:
Post a Comment