A Philadelphia abortion doctor will spend three life sentences behind bars. Jurors who spent months on the case finally got to speak about what they went through today. Those jurors were openly critical of Kermit Gosnell with some observation no defense attorney wants to hear. Let’s get reaction from a defense attorney we have been consulting with throughout this case. Enrique Latoison, we appreciate you being here with us in the digital operations center. Enrique let’s begin with the jury foreman’s observations about Dr. Gosnell’s body language. We will let you listen to it and then I’ll ask a question at the other end.
“He gave me nothing to give an impression on. He just sat there for the past eight weeks smirking. I didn’t care for it. I mean, the man, for what he’s facing, he just sat there and smirked for the past eight weeks.”
Now, the defense attorney, Jack McMahon, is never going to admit this publicly but, Enrique, based on what you just heard, do you think Gosnell’s defense team regrets not putting him on the witness stand?
Well, it’s a hard case to second guess on. At the end of the day, Mr. McMahon did save Mr. Gosnell’s life. He’s no longer facing the death penalty. And, a defense attorney, along with the district attorney, using always instructs witnesses that the jury is always watching. They always looking and seeing how a person interacts with the defense attorney, with the other court room staff. They are always making their own opinions on being able to sit there and stare at someone, especially at the time it took in this case. And, it’s not surprising that when a person doesn’t testify that they use something as a smirk that Mr. Gosnell might have been doing, to express as displeasure in something and that was perceived in a way in a negative fashion.
Enrique, what about the juror’s personal views on abortion? I took a look at each of their bios. Most of them were pro-choice. How much of that played into the case, if at all? First listen to the jurors thoughts here.
”I’m pro-choice. I believe in a woman’s right to choose. They are just not decisions I would personally make myself. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate the sanctity of life”
Well, I would think that during the jury selection process, the defense would have known what the views were for as their views on abortion goes. And, I think we could agree that pro-choice jury member was probably more beneficial to the defense in this case, even though he was convicted of these charges.
Alright, Enrique, two of these three jurors, who spoke out today, said they believe Gosnell began as a good doctor. I want you listen and then I’ll get your reaction at the other end.
“Most of us felt that the doctor probably started out good in helping the community but, in the end, most of us felt that it came down to a greed factor.”
Enrique, do you think the defense could have built more on the juror’s belief that Gosnell started as a good guy?
Well, yes, I do believe that and not second guessing Mr. McMahon but every defense in a case like this has the ability to put on character witnesses to talk about a person’s reputation, peacefulness, law abiding reputation in the community. So, you do have that ability underneath the law to present that evidence, even fact witnesses that could talk about whether or not this was unlikely his behavior and he’s not known to be a murderer and do these kinds of things. So, once again, not second guessing Mr. McMahon and the defense he put on. At the end of the day, Mr. Gosnell’s life was saved. So, one can argue that it still was a successful defense on Mr. Gosnell facing the charges and all the evidence that was against him.
This has been a major story that caught the attention of the country and we appreciate the defense attorney Enrique Latoison for legal analysis. We appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Have a good day.
TRANSCRIPT:
A Philadelphia abortion doctor will spend three life sentences behind bars. Jurors who spent months on the case finally got to speak about what they went through today. Those jurors were openly critical of Kermit Gosnell with some observation no defense attorney wants to hear. Let’s get reaction from a defense attorney we have been consulting with throughout this case. Enrique Latoison, we appreciate you being here with us in the digital operations center. Enrique let’s begin with the jury foreman’s observations about Dr. Gosnell’s body language. We will let you listen to it and then I’ll ask a question at the other end.
“He gave me nothing to give an impression on. He just sat there for the past eight weeks smirking. I didn’t care for it. I mean, the man, for what he’s facing, he just sat there and smirked for the past eight weeks.”
Now, the defense attorney, Jack McMahon, is never going to admit this publicly but, Enrique, based on what you just heard, do you think Gosnell’s defense team regrets not putting him on the witness stand?
Well, it’s a hard case to second guess on. At the end of the day, Mr. McMahon did save Mr. Gosnell’s life. He’s no longer facing the death penalty. And, a defense attorney, along with the district attorney, using always instructs witnesses that the jury is always watching. They always looking and seeing how a person interacts with the defense attorney, with the other court room staff. They are always making their own opinions on being able to sit there and stare at someone, especially at the time it took in this case. And, it’s not surprising that when a person doesn’t testify that they use something as a smirk that Mr. Gosnell might have been doing, to express as displeasure in something and that was perceived in a way in a negative fashion.
Enrique, what about the juror’s personal views on abortion? I took a look at each of their bios. Most of them were pro-choice. How much of that played into the case, if at all? First listen to the jurors thoughts here.
”I’m pro-choice. I believe in a woman’s right to choose. They are just not decisions I would personally make myself. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate the sanctity of life”
Well, I would think that during the jury selection process, the defense would have known what the views were for as their views on abortion goes. And, I think we could agree that pro-choice jury member was probably more beneficial to the defense in this case, even though he was convicted of these charges.
Alright, Enrique, two of these three jurors, who spoke out today, said they believe Gosnell began as a good doctor. I want you listen and then I’ll get your reaction at the other end.
“Most of us felt that the doctor probably started out good in helping the community but, in the end, most of us felt that it came down to a greed factor.”
Enrique, do you think the defense could have built more on the juror’s belief that Gosnell started as a good guy?
Well, yes, I do believe that and not second guessing Mr. McMahon but every defense in a case like this has the ability to put on character witnesses to talk about a person’s reputation, peacefulness, law abiding reputation in the community. So, you do have that ability underneath the law to present that evidence, even fact witnesses that could talk about whether or not this was unlikely his behavior and he’s not known to be a murderer and do these kinds of things. So, once again, not second guessing Mr. McMahon and the defense he put on. At the end of the day, Mr. Gosnell’s life was saved. So, one can argue that it still was a successful defense on Mr. Gosnell facing the charges and all the evidence that was against him.
This has been a major story that caught the attention of the country and we appreciate the defense attorney Enrique Latoison for legal analysis. We appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Have a good day.
For other practice areas or other legal services, go to www.LatoisonLaw.com