W-b Administrator A Witness For Leighton, Says Source 
Wilkes-barre City Councilman Tom Leighton Hedges When Asked Whether He Has A 
Witness.

Agnes Harvey 
February 3, 1997 
Agnes L. Harvey, 84, Of The Star Hill Rest Home, Beaumont, Where She Was A 
Guest For The Past Year, Formerly Of Noxen, Died Monday At The Home.

Thursday, February 06, 1997 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 





Real justice should mean trying well, not often &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 To throw a dissident into a soundproofed room, lock the door, and smirk
while you say, ``Give all the speeches you want in there, kid,'' would seem a
pretty clear violation that person's constitutional rightsCorrect? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So how come O.J. Simpson just got tried a second time? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Something's not right about forcing a person -- any person, even a
potential murderer -- to face a judge, jury, and the police power of the
state, twice for the same offense. Something's not right about defying the
basic constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Something's just not right , and it's time more people said so. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Yes, yes, we know about the difference between a civil and a criminal
trial. We know the Fifth Amendment insists only that "(no) person be subject
for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb," and thus
enabled the O.J civil case (in which money alone was at stake) to proceed. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 We know the different burdens of proof involved -- "beyond a reasonable
doubt" in criminal court, "preponderance of the evidence" in civil. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 But darn it, the whole thing still doesn't sit right. It flunks the
citizen's test of common sense. Want proof? Consider the pathetic legal minuet
which everyone talking about the O.J. case must now dance. O.J. Simpson is
"liable" for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, the jury
held. But he's "not guilty" of them. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 What on earth does that mean? Does such hairsplitting satisfy any
reasonable sense of justice? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 A similar end-run around the Fifth Amendment now is taking place in New
York. Some years ago, young Lemrick Nelson got charged with the murder of
Yankel Rosenbaum during a riot in Brooklyn. Nelson was acquitted by a jury in
state court. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 But now he's on trial again, in federal court. The charge? Violating
Rosenbaum's "civil rights." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 This trumped-up charge clearly got leveled only because the first verdict
was unpopular. But the Fifth Amendment's very purpose was to guard against mob
justice. If we want a person tried twice, are we now to believe we need only
march and demonstrate and protest loud and long? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The obvious next question: Would this reasoning have prevented the L.A.
cops from being tried twice for the beating of Rodney King? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The answer is yes. That trial, too, got staged only because the first
verdict drew the wrath of the national mob. But it's in just such cases -- the
hard cases, the cases in which "everyone knows" the verdict should have gone
the other way -- when the Fifth Amendment protections must be brought to bear. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The Bill of Rights means nothing if it can't be applied to all. Republican
Congressman J.C. Watts often notes, "Character means doing the right thing
even when nobody's looking." That's true, but it's only half the story.
Because sometimes -- as in standing fast on the courthouse steps in front of a
wild-eyed crowd -- character is doing the right thing when everyone's looking. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Our rule of law has lost its focus as a societal search for truth. The
verdict in a criminal case is becoming just another technicality, a "bump on
the road" like a piece of tainted evidence for the mob and the prosecutors to
overcome. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 It should be honored as much more than that. A jury's verdict should
resolve, in part, the pivotal question of truth. It should settle the question
once and for all: Did the defendant, or did the defendant not, commit the
crime? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 And if the question is settled in the defendant's favor, then the judges
and the courts and the police should back off, forever. Even when the jury
might be mistaken, as in the cases named above. Even in those cases the nation
is rabid to retry. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Such cases are the price our free society must pay to preserve the bulwark
of our Bill of Rights. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 That's the true spirit of the Fifth Amendment, in our view. And that's why
the O.J. Simpson case should not have gone to civil trial. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Real Justice Should Mean Trying Well, Not Often 
To Throw A Dissident Into A Soundproofed Room, Lock The Door, And Smirk While 
You Say, ``give All The Speeches You Want In There, Kid,'' Would Seem A Pretty 
Clear Violation That Person's Constitutional Rights.

Real Justice Should Mean Trying Well, Not Often To Throw A Dissident Into A Soundproofed Room, Lock The Door, And Smirk While You Say, ``give All The Speeches You Want In There, Kid,'' Would Seem A Pretty Clear Violation That Person's Constitutional Rights.