Stain removal will be hard for Lewis

SHELTON E-mail: Click here Archive

By GARY SHELTON

© St. Petersburg Times, published June 6, 2000

Ah, what a fine day it must be around the offices of Atlanta District Attorney Paul Howard and his stumbling band of backup singers. Thanks to dedication, hard work and a commitment to justice, they have, in order, proved the following:

That on the night of Jan. 31, it was dark.

That it was, furthermore, cold.

That Ray Lewis was, in fact, in town.

That, you know, stuff happened.

So there.

When you get down to it, that's about all the evidence the prosecution had when it went celebrity hunting in the name of Lewis. Oh, they had the deaths of two men, which are tragic. They had Lewis among those at the scene of the crimes. They had Lewis not telling the truth, instructing witnesses to keep their mouths shut, and changing clothes.

But when you get down to it, when you get down to Lewis and down to murder, what they had was diddly. So who decided to prosecute this case in the first place? Hamilton Burger? And here's the bigger question: What happens now?

How does a prosecutor apologize for this? Does Howard walk up to Lewis, chuck him on the shoulder and say: "Good game, Ray. I sure hope the Ravens have a good year coming up. So, do you think that Dilfer guy can help?"

How do you repair a reputation that has been shattered? How do shrug and say "Oops?" How, exactly, do you return Lewis to the esteem in which he was held before you dragged him into trial, pointed and said, "Murderer."

For months now, Lewis' name has been dragged through the sludge. Together with Rae Carruth, who still is awaiting trial, Lewis has been held up as an example of a good player gone bad, an exhibit of the new recklessness in the NFL. He has been a villain, a thug and a punch line. So how do you get the stain out of a reputation? How do you put things back the way they were?

The honest answer, of course, is that you don't. Say what you want about the notion of innocent until proven guilty, the charge always seems to carry more weight than the outcome of a trial. For instance, do you know what Lizzie Borden, Shoeless Joe Jackson and O.J. Simpson have in common? They were found not guilty in court, that's what. Fat lot of good it did the way they are remembered.

After all, high-minded men purportedly seeking justice have suggested that Lewis was responsible for the deaths of two men. Because of that, Lewis will be thought of to some as not a man who got justice but as a man who got away. They will talk of how he lied to police when asked who was in his limo, of how witnesses say they heard him tell others to stay quiet about it, and they will wonder. Televised trials turn us all into jurors, so it is completely natural to reach our own verdicts, the way we did in the Simpson case.

This time, however, there is a difference. With Simpson, there was a massive amount of evidence suggesting he had committed the crimes he was accused of. With Lewis, we have yet to see the first shred of evidence from anyone with a shred of credibility. Where are the witnesses? Where is the evidence? You don't have to belong to the Bar to see this; I'm not sure you even need to stay out of one.

Could Lewis have handled things better than he did? Of course. He hung around, in his words, "with the wrong people." He shouldn't have lied to the police. If he had waited until his attorney was present and then been honest, you get the idea he would have been a witness instead of a defendant. Still, that doesn't make him a murderer. It does make him guilty of obstruction of justice, which is the charge he agreed to plead guilty to Monday.

Yes, Lewis needs to answer some questions about what he really saw that night, about what he really knows. (He will do that on the witness stand, where the prosecution that labeled him a liar is suddenly eager to use his words against others.) But doesn't Paul Howard have a few questions to answer, too?

1) Was Lewis charged because prosecutors thought he was the ringleader or because his name took this case from page 11F to 1A in the local newspapers?

2) What was the rush to go to trial? Murder doesn't have a statute of limitations. Why do a wind sprint to get to trial?

3) Does the prosecution think it was bumbling, unethical and confused? Or would it prefer the adjectives petty, small and foolish? 4) Did Christopher Darden have days like this?

5) Why shouldn't Carruth's attorneys immediately ask for a change of venue to Atlanta?

6) Was there a thought of charging Lewis with the Olympic bombing, too?

Go ahead, laugh at these men. If the prosecution goes into court armed with evidence so flimsy it could be sold by Victoria's Secret, wastes taxpayers' money and lays waste to a man's reputation, it's asking for it.

A few years ago, a former Bucs kicker named Donald Igwebuike was accused of conspiring to import heroin into the country. He went to trial and was found innocent. I remember standing with him in a strip mall, traffic flashing past. I remember the glassy look in his eyes as he wondered if his life would ever be the same. But he knew the answer. It wouldn't be. And it wasn't.

Lewis, too, will face lingering suspicion that will tickle the back of the minds of those who will wonder if the case boiled down to Lewis' innocence or the prosecution's incompetence.

Based on the prosecution's case, Lewis deserves the benefit of the doubt. An apology, too.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.

Headlines

Americans Lose in 1st Round of Davis Cup

---