|
Presiding over the trial of John Hinckley, Jr.
was Judge Barrington D. Parker, a black Republican who had been
appointed by President Richard Nixon. Parker had a sharply receding
hairline, a trim mustache, and a serious, scholarly manner. He was
disabled and walked with the help of crutches.
Vincent Fuller, a short, stocky, silver-haired
man, led the defense team. He was a partner in the respected,
high-priced Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. Assisting him
was a tall young attorney with the memorable name, Greg Craig.
The tall, self-confident Roger Adelman, who
enjoyed sporting broad ties decorated with Stars and Stripes, led the
prosecution.
“The jury’s got to be well-educated,” Jack
Hinckley kept saying before they were impaneled. After all, they
would be going over some of the most complex medical and legal issues
in existence, questions that even experts find confusing. However, he
and everyone else connected with the case knew that the chances of a
jury composed of people boasting advanced degrees was slim. The pool
consisted of Washington, D.C., inner-city residents. They were people
who were likely to start out with a grudge against a privileged child
of the suburbs. Thus, John’s attorneys had to ask every prospective
juror if he or she could be impartial to a defendant from an affluent
suburban background. Even more embarrassingly, they had to ask
prospective jurors, mostly blacks, if they could be impartial toward a
person who was prejudiced against blacks.
The jury that was impaneled consisted of seven
women and five men. There were 11 blacks and one white. They were
working class, blue and pink collar people. The group included a
janitor, two secretaries, an information-control clerk, a parking lot
attendant, and a hotel banquet worker. These were the people who
would decide the fate of a bigoted white from an affluent family who
had been recorded on videotape shooting the president of the United
States and three other people.
Many observers believed a trial was a waste of
time and money. A guilty verdict seemed a foregone conclusion.
Hinckley’s family and his attorneys pinned their
few hopes on one early victory. Judge Parker had ruled that the
burden of proof regarding the defendant’s mental status would rest
with the prosecution. Thus, the district attorney had to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the shooting, John Hinckley
Jr. was legally sane.
In his opening, prosecutor Adelman emphasized
evidence that the defendant had stalked his targets, had exercised
care in choosing the exploding Devastator bullets to maximize the
damage to his victims, and that four of six of his shots had hit
people.
The defense opening did not dispute the facts
mentioned by Adelman but asserted that they were the actions of a
person who could not be held fully responsible because his mind was so
unhinged.
The government’s case started with two powerful
videotapes. The courtroom was darkened while six TV sets displayed a
crowd on a campaign stop that then-President Jimmy Carter had made in
Dayton, Ohio, in 1980. The action was stopped. A pointer was
directed at a small face in the background of the screen: that of John
Hinckley, Jr.
Then the tape of the terrible events of March
30, 1981, a tape that had been seen innumerable times in TV sets in
homes all across America, was played. The jury saw, as they had to
have seen as private citizens before, John take aim at President
Reagan. They heard the panicked cries of “President Reagan, President
Reagan!” as well as the six pops almost masked by the noise of big
city traffic.
Two of those John shot, police officer Thomas
Delahanty and Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy, took the witness
stand. The jury was shown photos of all four victims and articles of
clothing that still bore bloodstains. A neurosurgeon from George
Washington University Hospital testified about how James Brady’s brain
had been damaged by the shooting.
 |
| Gun evidence |
| 
