Columnist Jamala Rogers
Since the announcement of an execution date for Reggie Clemons, there has been increasing and serious interest in the Chain of Rocks Bridge tragedy. The facts of the case are all out there for people to make their decision – not so much about innocence or guilt, but whether the process and the climate gave Reggie and his other co-defendants due process under the law.
The answer seems to always come back an unequivocal “NO!”
The public is finally getting to see and hear the substantiating evidence that this was sham justice. Once upon a time (and not that long ago) when incidents of this sensitive nature came up, there wasn’t even pretense about a trial. The suspect’s rights were totally ignored and the nearest tree was his or her sentence.
That brutal circumvention of the law has been deemed unacceptable. In its place are trials that reek of jury manipulation, racism, evidence tampering and prosecutorial transgressions.
The St. Louis American has taken a unique step in printing excerpts of court transcripts and other documents so that readers can see first-hand the court proceedings during Reggie’s investigation and trial. Many of you have been aghast at how such blatant incidents could go unchallenged and, worse, lead to convictions.
How could the forced testimony of a juvenile who did not have a parent or attorney present be admissible and subsequently used against him and other co-defendants, as was also the case for 16-year-old Antonio Richardson?
Why was Thomas Cummins’ original confession (also heard by his father) during police interrogation kicked to the curb once it was discovered that some black boys had been on the bridge? Why didn’t the court room antics of prosecutor Nels Moss result in a mistrial?
Why did Cummins get a reported $150,000 settlement for police brutality when he didn’t have a scratch to show for it, while Reggie and Marlin Gray got death sentences for their bruises and cuts at the hands of Detectives Pappas and Brauer? How did Moss get away with striking potential jurors in violation of Batson, a U.S. Supreme Court case that made it illegal to strike black jurors without just cause?
Why did we have to find out recently from a local public affairs program that Moss never turned over the clothes from the Kerry sister to Reggie’s defense attorney?
For every question that gets answered, two or three more emerge. The questions go on and on.
These kinds of questions get to the heart of whether Reggie had a fair trial with a jury of his peers, a right that is guaranteed by our Constitution and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If fundamental questions still linger after 18 years, that’s reasonable doubt.
It is obvious that many cases like Reggie’s never get another chance to see the light of day for a number of reasons, none of which are rational. When a rogue system is allowed to run roughshod over suspects, the system itself must purge these characters in order to maintain a credible system that protects the rights of all – both victims and suspects.
Right now, the public has become the prosecutor in this case. The prosecutor’s role is not just to convict but to pull together the facts and evidence of a case. By competently doing so, it may be determined that there’s not enough evidence or that the wrong person has been accused. In a political climate where a prosecutor is running for higher office, it becomes more about another notch on the belt of convictions, not about justice.
You are digging and probing to help ferret out the facts and even seek out new evidence. Being a part of this kind of community process has been amazing. It may be the external pressure that the so-called justice system needs to correct itself before the State executes an innocent man.