What Price Justice? A commentary on the acquittal of Chol Soo Lee

from East Wind Magazine Vol. 1 No. 2 Fall/Winter (1982)Subheadings were added to the original publication to make this more readable on the web.

By Ranko Yamada

A tremendous victory occurred on September 3,1982 when the jury found Chol Soo Lee not guilty in the retrial of the Chinatown murder case, Daily, dozens of Asians came to the Hall of Justice. They came notwithstanding the sheriff at the courtroom door who searched all packages and purses and the high security courtroom with its bullet-proof glass walls isolating the audience.

For Asians, this case has been so compelling as to arouse an indignation and anger spanning generations and nationality. One elderly Korean told a defense committee member, "Some days I was tired and didn't want to take the bus to come to trial. But every minute I would get more restless, wondering what was happening. Finally, I wouldn't be able to stand it and had to come to see for myself what was going on." Others sat in the courtroom all day, not understanding one word of English but waiting for that moment when they could wave to Chol Soo or mouth words of support through the glass wall.

Choi Soo Lee, both the man and the case, spoke to that totality of humiliations, racist ignorance and suffering that Asians have in common.

Choi Soo's case stands for our own lives here taken to its harshest extreme. In 1973, a Korean immigrant youth, without money, known as the "Korean" in Chinatown and as Chinese to outsiders, could not have been a better more vulnerable target. He was easily caught in the political hysteria sounding from the Mayor's office through the police department to prove to the city that they could clear up the Chinatown violence.

Chol Soo was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment when his greatest crime was for being poor, minority and immigrant.

Nine years later and after five weeks of a vicious, hostile trial he has won a full acquittal.

Since the trial, I have heard people say, "Chol Soo was found innocent! He got a fair trial at last!" While we all share a great relief and joy at the acquittal, these particular words disturb me greatly. What illusion can be more dangerous than to believe that the criminal justice system is now vindicated by acquitting Choi Soo Lee?

Easy win? Fair trial? Here is one scenario:

The trial has been postponed four times, a year and a half down the road from when it should have occurred. One month before the next date set, the attorney says that he can no longer continue with the case. Further, there is only $2,000 left in the defense fund; the district attorney has asked for a search warrant to issue on the defense committee for "any possible criminal and civil violations;" supporters are beginning to feel that the trial may never happen; and it appears that someone is trying to kill Chol Soo in prison.

All of this happened this spring. To lose on any one situation would have lost the case. The committees had to find not just any answers, but answers that would keep Chol Soo alive, stand up to the district attorney's harassment, continue the support and still win the case.

During Chol Soo's trial, the testimonies presented to the jury were conclusions of difficult hours of prior work and consideration. This was not the case in 1974 at the first trial, nor would this have been the case today without the solid integration of strategy by the defense attorneys, investigation and supporters. For instance, the decision for Chol Soo not to testify was discussed and agreed upon together. The general rule is that a jury perceives guilt when a defendant does not take the stand on his own behalf. But to put Choi Soo on the stand would have also opened the door to the 1979 prison killing case and would have allowed the prosecution a direct assault on Chol Soo. That decision was too serious for any one party to make.

Again, when in the fourth week of trial a confidential source told a defense committee member that a woman juror had lied to us in voir dire, the relationship between attorneys Serra, Hanlon, investigator Thompson and the committee had endured enough tests of trust to call for her immediate dismissal. Josie Mathes, who had intentionally withheld the fact of her marriage to a police officer and her friendship to prosecutors, could have hung the jury. Even with the perjury known, because of the vigorous opposition by the district attorney, the court did not dismiss her for three days.

She stayed on for three more days because s the court has its own definition of fairness. Therefore, more weight and legitimacy is given to a doctored police document incriminating Chol Soo Lee, than to the fact that the police had threatened and told defense witnesses to "stay away." The prosecution is allowed to use eight of their peremptory challenges to remove all Asian prospective jurors because this is legal, not racist. This meant that Chol Soo's life was on trial and yet key Chinatown defense witnesses had to choose between risking their own lives or not testifying.

On the other hand, the prosecution had at their command a steady line of desperate prison snitches who were willing to say anything to stay alive and be paid for testifying. When the prosecution is allowed to put on someone as despicable as Arturo Serrado, the prison snitch who said he heard Chol Soo confess, what we have-is lawfully endorsed treachery and malice. Because of the rules of evidence, Arturo Serrado was encouraged and rewarded to lie and frame a man, while Chol Soo Lee was prevented from speaking to his own innocence.

Again, when in the fourth week of trial a confidential source told a defense committee member that a woman juror had lied to us in voir dire, the relationship between attorneys Serra, Hanlon, investigator Thompson and the committee had endured enough tests of trust to call for her immediate dismissal. Josie Mathes, who had intentionally withheld the fact of her marriage to a police officer and her friendship to prosecutors, could have hung the jury. Even with the perjury known, because of the vigorous opposition by the district attorney, the court did not dismiss her for three days.

She stayed on for three more days because s the court has its own definition of fairness. Therefore, more weight and legitimacy is given to a doctored police document incriminating Chol Soo Lee, than to the fact that the police had threatened and told defense witnesses to "stay away." The prosecution is allowed to use eight of their peremptory challenges to remove all Asian prospective jurors because this is legal, not racist. This meant that Chol Soo's life was on trial and yet key Chinatown defense witnesses had to choose between risking their own lives or not testifying.

On the other hand, the prosecution had at their command a steady line of desperate prison snitches who were willing to say anything to stay alive and be paid for testifying. When the prosecution is allowed to put on someone as despicable as Arturo Serrado, the prison snitch who said he heard Chol Soo confess, what we have-is lawfully endorsed treachery and malice. Because of the rules of evidence, Arturo Serrado was encouraged and rewarded to lie and frame a man, while Chol Soo Lee was prevented from speaking to his own innocence.

Mass support for Chol Soo Lee proved to be a decisive factor in the victory, but such support did not just develop overnight or spontaneously. It took organization to get all the people together, to expand the support and follow through. Pivotal to the organizing effort were the committees that formed in Sacramento, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Midwest - different compositions which joined Koreans with Asian Americans; revolutionaries with ministers; and businessmen with students. These committees played a major role in directing the movement for five years: financially, socially and politically carving out the conditions to win the case.

The committees had to constantly test their ideas and commitment, often through bitter struggle and periods of demoralization. It was important to determine that this case speaks to the particular national oppression faced by Koreans and other Asians. It was a more difficult task to bring this message to working and poor people and to have them identify with this case. This meant long years of trying to sink roots into the different Asian communities, with endless fund raisers, educationals and rallies.

Indeed there is a long way to go. We are faced with a prison murder conviction of horrible consequence. Chol Soo's 1979 murder conviction for the self-defense killing of a neo-Nazi gang member is currently on ap- peal before the Sacramento Third District Court of Appeals. The next deadline for a decision is October 3O, 1982. The appellate court can either confirm the conviction, reverse the conviction and grant anew trial, or in- dependently find him guilty of sec- ond degree murder. Whether we win or lose the appeal will depend upon how organized we are.

Ranko Yamada is an attorney. She is active in the Bay Area Committee to Free Chol Soo Lee and the Nihonmachi Legal Outreach in San Francisco.