Ohio v Sowell: A trial of Double Standards
“Do not hold us to a CSI standard. Hold us to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.” -Former Assistant Prosecutor Pinkey Carr-Source NewsNet5 by Jan Jeer.
The above quote was what then assistant prosecutor Pinkey Carr told prospective jurors. What exactly did she mean by, “do not hold us to a CSI standard?”
It would seem she implied what Crime Scene Investigators primarily look for is…DNA.
Cuyahoga County Prosecutors knew that then accused serial killer Anthony Sowell’s DNA was not present on the badly decomposed 11-Women discovered in and around his 12205 Imperial Avenue home. The only DNA discovered on the ligatures (strangling objects used) was the victims.
So how do you build and pursue a death penalty case without slam dunk incriminating DNA?
Damning Evidence and Testimony
Let the grisly photos and tear jerking survivors’ testimonies have their way with juror’s emotions.
It may not be “slam dunk” DNA, but these time-tested strategies and effective methods are usually all…net. Did it work for Cuyahoga County Prosecutors?
This actual court transcript from Ohio v Sowell trial is very revealing. Note the jury reached its verdict based on “aggravating circumstances.”
But for Vernice Crutcher’s cold case it was “held in abeyance for a hit in CODIS” (Combined DNA Information System).
In other words before Sowell or anyone can be indicted not convicted for her physical and sexual assault a DNA match is required.
Why the obvious double standard?
Double Standard Defined
“A rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.”
A CODIS hit was not required for Sowell survivors Tonja Doss or Vanessa Gay. As aforementioned it was not the determining factor for a guilty verdict.
So why after the Ohio v Sowell trial is it a pre-requisite for a lesser indictment charge in Vernice Crutcher’s cold case?
Why the blatant…double standard?