Just as all of us in the university community get wrapped up in classes and the football season, the "real world" intrudes in an unusually dramatic way with the trial of Chai Soua Vang, an immigrant from Laos, over charges of shooting nine hunters in the woods 230 miles north of Madison. A jury from Madison was chosen because it was feared Vang could not get a fair hearing from residents of Sawyer County, even after so much time has passed, because the case had been the center of so much intense publicity. The Sawyer County Circuit Court ruled that "publicity and strong emotions in the Rice Lake area jeopardized Mr. Vang's chances for a fair trial." Now one of the questions is whether the jury will provide any greater fairness. It's a question worth answering.
Many of us come from places where hunting is not part of the culture and the whole concept of hunting animals is viewed with total distaste. Those from northern Wisconsin, however, are some of the most avid hunters in the country. Many of them worry that a Madison jury is likely to be made up of people who may not be able to put aside their viewpoints regarding hunting and gun control.
Though not all of the facts have been made public, there is concern that the facts in this trial might be lost in issues of race and rural custom. Vang claims that the incident began when white hunters from the Rice Lake community began yelling racial slurs at him. He says they shot first. The surviving victims say that Vang shot at them first. Hmong hunters claim that there have always been racial tensions in Rice Lake, whereas the locals deny any racial undertones and say it is simply a matter of people from Laos not understanding the local hunting etiquette.
The worry that a fair trial is impossible with a Madison jury is part of the traditional view that many Wisconsinites have of Madison as elitist and dominated by the liberal faculty and students of the University of Wisconsin. Though it has not been stated explicitly, presumably the Rice Lake residents fear that a Madison jury will be sympathetic to charges of racism, especially when it involves people from Southeast Asia, where American military actions have been so widely condemned by liberals. Rice Lake hunters also worry that Madison locals can't possibly understand the use of hunting stands and customary rules about who gets access to private hunting grounds.
These concerns about a Madison jury seem uninformed, unfair and contradictory to the core of our legal system. As many of you know, Madison, as well as the campus, is not entirely liberal, although at times it may seem that way. There is a strong conservative population. The chance that the jury from Madison would be comprised entirely of stereotypical liberals is unlikely; both because there is a sizeable conservative population here, and because no attorney would ever permit such a thing to happen.
More importantly, at the heart of the jury system is the belief that, regardless of a jury's biases, jurors can be instructed on the law, can understand and interpret it, and can administer justice fairly. Americans must trust the system of trial by a jury of one's peers to work and to serve justice. Regardless of political biases, hunting etiquette, community custom and even race, Rice Lake citizens, as well as the nation as a whole, should not question the fairness of a Madison jury. It is insulting.
Emily Friedman ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
