Sean Bell Verdict: The Verdict Was in On March 19, 2007

Yes, you read this right. The verdict was in on March, 19, 2007. On that day the grand jury delivered the indictments and that is what sunk the case.

Back on that day I posted a link to the indictment found here

If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent.

Once it was shown in court, by both Isnora and Oliver that the target of their weapons fire was Guzman, it didn't matter what happened to Bell (case wise) Bell becomes collateral damage from the assault on Guzman.

So the question that needs to be asked is why was there no second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if such a charge exists) leveled at Isnora and Oliver?

If the prosecutor did not ask for such an indictment, was he or his office acting in concert with the police department to assure that the officers would be acquitted? That is a fair question given the DA's comments about wanting to maintain the respect of the police.

It would also explain what I considered a very weak prosecution that had no aim other than "laying out the evidence." Did the prosecution know that they could not show intent? I know full well from reading the transcripts that intent with the possible exception of Oliver's grand jury testimony was NOT proven and no effort that I saw was made to show intent.

If it is the case that the prosecution purposefully not charge the officers with the charges that could have been proven, then I think there ought to be a Federal investigation into why that happened.

Technorati Tags: Sean Bell Watch