Mark Murders

On October 31, 1975, the Leslie Mark family was murdered in cold blood. Leslie, Jorjean and their two children were found dead in their home, all with gun shot wounds to the head and heart. One week after the murder, Leslie’s brother Jerry and his girlfriend were arrested for the quadruple homicide and held on a 200,000 bond.

This case shocked the Cedar Falls community. No one thought that the Jerry Mark they knew was capable of such a monstrous act. The person they knew was something quite different then the charges presented. Mark was a popular guy in his hometown of Cedar Falls, Iowa. His family was well known, his personality was engaging, and he was a very smart person. Jerry was the second oldest in a family of four boys whose family trade was farming making them quite wealthy.

This past week in class we were able to sit down with prosecutor Dave Dutton and author Scott Cawelti to further examine this mind baffling murder that took place in a town that was seemingly safe. The two, having extensive knowledge on the case, were a tag team of filled with facts that supported the some-what controversial case. Mark was convicted of the murders solely off of circumstantial evidence, which is hard to do. Although, the evidence that was pointing Jerry to the crime was extremely convincing and there was just too many ironic occurrences for it not to be fact.

District Court Judge Dave Staudt's Presentation

It could not have been 10 seconds into District Court Judge Dave Staudt’s presentation to realize he was in fact, what he claimed to be. A forthright yet tactful man, picking and choosing wisely what he wanted share with us. I have no experience with ever meeting a judge and have definitely never had the opportunity of sitting down with one, accessing information the normal citizen cannot. Staudt’s informative appearance gave our class the opportunity to learn the hierarchy of our states justice system, his background and how he decided to become a judge, along with a long list of criteria and regulation that the typical citizen is uninformed or apathetic to.

He began his appearance by explaining his position in the Iowa justice system. Dave Staudt is 1 of 110 District Court Judge’s statewide, and just a few levels below the Iowa Supreme Court. To be elected to serve this honor, one must first be a lawyer admitted to practice law in the state of Iowa. You must then send an application to the nonpartisan commission along with extensive information about one’s education, professional career, and qualifications. The commission will then conduct interviews selecting just two of the applicants to then be brought forth before the Governor for selection. Staudt was a district attorney for ten years before applying for this position, which adequately qualified him for such a role.

A district attorney is an elected or appointed official who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offences. They are paid by the state, for the state and do their best to deliver a fair and effective prosecution. The District Attorney’s office is responsible for any cases besides civil suits. Under this position, Staudt had seen “Just about every type of case.” Murders, theft, rape, and the list goes on.

Judge Staudt’s level of positioning in our states justice system sees felony’s ranging from drug trafficking all the way to murder. Depending on the severity or uniqueness of the situation, the Supreme Court of Iowa can step in and take the case at any point in time. An example he gave us of the Iowa Supreme Court stepping in was an issue between two women who wished to be married. At that point in time, gay marriage was illegal under Iowa law. They went to the county clerk to attain their marriage license with the thought of being denied the right of marriage would be unconstitutional. They were inevitably denied a license and chose to sue the state of Iowa. The Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs granting them the right to get married. The case was appealed in the Iowa Supreme Court, gaining national coverage and attracting an enormous amount of criticism via supporters of both sides. In April of 2009, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling finding it was contrary with the equal protection clause of a state constitution such as Iowa’s.

Staudt was asked many interesting questions about his own court experiences and accounts. Some along the lines of ruling in favor of the law when maybe his personal beliefs go against what he is ruling. Others asking what his most covered or interesting case has been in his long line of duty. As a District Court Judge, the judicial system is requiring them to interpret the law as stated and then to proceed to making a decision on that case according to law. It is not in their job description to rule in favor of something because they feel it is not unethical or unjust nor can a judge at Staudt’s level interpret the law in hope of a bill for revision. From the sentences above I concluded I could never be a judge. If a case was brought to me and it went against my personal beliefs to rule in favor of the written law, I could not do so. Luckily Judge Staudt said he has never encountered such a case… Yet. 

Foreign Correspondent Summary

Johnny Jones, a seemingly insubordinate news reporter is sent from New York to London as a foreign correspondent to cover a secret treaty between two European countries. He interviews Van Meer, the head of the peace movement. Johnny meets the daughter of Stephen Fisher, who is endorsing the peace movement and finds her much more interesting than the movement. There shortly after Van Meer is apparently assassinated. Johnny followed the assassin where he and another journalist investigated the case further. They find Van Meer drugged upped and imprisoned. His captors escape with Meer and when Jones tries to tell people he is not believed until attempts on his own life win the trust of carol. They both return to London where Jones comes to find out the Carols father, Stephen Fisher is actually the leader of the conspiracy. After a misunderstanding between the two due to Johnny trying to protect her, they have a falling out. Jones tries to explain the conspiracy to stall the peace efforts but it doesn’t work and war is declared. 

Media and Courts Memo

To:                         Reporter

           

From:                     Daniel Mercadante

Date:                      2, February 2013

Subject:                  Media and Courts

I am writing to inform you of the effects that today’s media can have on those that are accused. As we know from the book and federal cases throughout the years, the media can paint a sometimes, biased picture of the defendants before anything has been proven, or even a plea has been made. Tom Clark, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice suggested this problem over 45 years ago and with technology and the availability of information only getting more accessible, little has changed. Protected by Amendments, our constitution gives criminal defendants certain rights that can be obstructed by the media and the amount of people who rely on it for information. They will be further explained below along with other laws, procedures and public access we, Americans have.

The Media’s Affect on a Fair Trial

What is very important to understand from this chapter is that not all media coverage skews the reality of a news story and the intent of journalist’s is simply to inform factual information about what is already known. Significant measures have been taken over the last 50 years to protect defendants of a fair trial. The book talks about financier Billy Sol Estes who was accused of a multi-million dollar fraud whose conviction was overturned due to the presence of television cameras. Media coverage at times can generate a difficulty for judges to maintain a fair trial and proper judicial correctness. Another example of a trial that was overturned due to unfairness on the media’s part was Sheppard V. Maxwell. Sheppard was accused and found guilty of the murder of his wife. From the day of his case till the day of the verdict, the media saturated every aspect of this situation, inside the courtroom and out. There was no hard evidence that tied him to the murder yet he was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife. It took ten years behind bars for his conviction to be overturned because of the unfairness of the press coverage. From this case, it is important to understand the importance of protecting defendants right to a fair trial. Even if he was guilty, it was overturned because of distorted perceptions the press can create.

The Courts Actions on Creating a Fair Trial for Defendants

Through a long list of trial and error, our judicial system has attempted to perfect the fairness of criminal trials. Though far from perfect, measures have been taken to guard the unjust inevitabilities suffocated media coverage creates. Some are as followed: impartial and anonymous jurors, impartial judges, continuance, juror admonition, juror sequestration, contempt, and access to open trials. I will explain some of one I feel are most important from the list above. Impartial jurors are a pivotal part of a fair trial being that it is their job to base their verdict on strictly facts presented by the courts rather than opinions they may have. The system will go to such measures to change locations of trials to protect fairness of pretrial circumstances. A policy that runs parallel with the one in the previous sentence is continuance. This is where the defendant or the attorney believes that a delay in the trial will reduce the prejudicial impact of the trial. Juror sequestration is where the judge isolates the jury from the media during highly publicized cases.

Courts have taken beneficial strides to make sure minors are receiving the same constitutional guarantees that are given to adults. Judges are also given the choice to a close court trial to protect juveniles. The severity of the crime is usually taken into consideration for a closed trial and some states have enacted laws that make certain crimes a mandatory open trial. Courts will also enact a closed trial when assault victims can be emotionally harmed by media attention.

Another way the judicial system has used its power to ensure fair trials is gags to limit extrajudicial discussion. Judges attempt to limit trial participants talking to the media by enforcing restraining orders. In other words it is controlling information at its source. This ensures that no information that could bias the opinions of followers is made available.

Publics Access to Court Records

The public and media have the right to access court records as long as it is not conflicting an interest with judicial policies and procedures. Public access of court records was granted after the famous Watergate conspiracy was uncovered and video of former president Richard Nixon was used as evidence. All access to these court cases are readily available online.