Gilbert's story has another side

-A A +A

Letter to the editor

By The Staff

If you’ve been on a jury, you’ll understand evidence in a trial. Each attorney tells you what they think the evidence will prove. However, the evidence usually needs a lot of prop-up support by the attorneys to make any sense at all.

The article last week about the tax evasion trial explained the one-sided assumption of what the evidence showed.

I was there and I saw the evidence differently. In closing argument, the government explained what the witnesses had proven, when in fact they had never said such things. Did the jury notice?

During the defense remarks, the jury was being swayed. So the next morning the judge stepped in to give a “curative instruction.” The instruction was hashed out over and over and over. Then the government offered a story about a “lawn-mowing cow” to pull the jury back.

The defendant had explained that a veterinary bill in question was a property-related expense, because he has cows in his field during summer months to keep the grass down. In LaRue County, it’s normal to have cows to avoid mowing and weed-eating our pastures. But the Jefferson County attorneys and jury members could not fathom it.

Besides cows, there were issues of fact and law that were mishandled or avoided in this case. I am frightened that our society has produced jurors with no understanding of their importance or responsibility. Even after a two-hour explanation of a different interpretation of tax laws according to the Supreme Court, they reverted to the baseless position of assumption. It’s like the judge’s instruction, “You must pay your taxes. It’s the law.” What law? I’d like to see it.

Adrienne Gilbert