David Bisard is back in the news. He drove his police car, possibly while intoxicated on duty, and struck a group of motorcyclists waiting to turn left, killing one man and injuring two other riders. That was in August 2010. Evidence has been repeatedly mishandled and the city has a new police chief and Public Safety Director over it. Over two years after the crash, his attorneys are concerned he might not get an impartial jury here in Indy. --Ya think?
I'm of two minds; while we want juries (and judges!) to be fair, as the mechanics of law have worked out, "impartial" has come to mean "ignorant" and I am not at all sure that was the original intent. In a case like this one, in which news coverage has been extensive and widespread and the facts of the traffic accident itself are not in question, only the officer's blood-alcohol level, A) where are they going to go to find a pool of jurors untouched by the news and B) how much difference would it make?
Nothing will bring back the dead, but ensuring Mr. Bisard is never allowed behind the wheel of a police car again would be a darned good start at protecting the living. Certainly IMPD has shown they cannot be counted on when one of their own has done wrong -- now we will find out if the court system can be.
Update (same link) He got his change of venue. Sure hope the town they pick has a good hotel, since the media will all set up there for the duration!
Thanks for the update.
ReplyDeleteThis case makes me furious.
That just sucks, and want an impartial jury? I hear Greenland would work... sigh
ReplyDeleteCases like this make the only rational case for ID chips in humans. An implant could be coded to prevent vehicle operation. If the perp tries to drive, he's out of luck.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the gadget fails and some poor swod can't leave the 7-11 with a sausage dog and a slurpee that's just unfortunate.
Stranger
"Impartial" doesn't mean ignorant, it means stupid.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Take this case to Florida, and try the Zimmermann case in Indy.
ReplyDelete