Often with high profile trials, we hold our collective breath as we watch the unbelievable theatrics that can take place. The charges and countercharges are nothing short of outrageous, and, if nothing else works, the victims often become the accused.
Our own community watched the trial of Jimena Barreto unfold and we held our breath. Bob and Carmen Pack experienced the unthinkable two years ago when their children, Troy and Alana, were hit and killed by a vehicle driven by Barreto as they walked on a sidewalk on Camino Tassajara. What should have been a slamdunk was not. Two children walking safely on the sidewalk protected by their mother were dead, and the accused fled from the scene and disappeared.
The case would have been easier if Barreto had been apprehended at the scene. Because she was not, it was difficult to prove she had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As a result, the prosecution needed to develop evidence to prove to the jury that while they did not have drug or alcohol tests establishing Barreto’s condition at that time, there was reasonable cause to believe, based on a pattern of behavior, that her driving was impaired that day. These facts were critical to whether the charges of murder, vs. manslaughter, would prevail.
It is reminiscent of another high profile case in which Scott Peterson was charged with killing his wife Lacey and their unborn child, Conner. In a similar set of circumstances, the prosecution did not have refutable physical evidence that Scott killed Lacey. They had no witnesses and found no hard evidence in his house or car to prove his guilt. The defense team focused on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence and coincidences that were nothing short of ridiculous. We all held our breath and. justice was ultimately served.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Pack case involved the treatment of the father, Bob Pack himself. It seems, that when nothing else works, defense teams turn on the victims demonizing them in the interest of freeing their clients. How often in a rape case does the victim refuse to appear in court for fear that her own background will be exploited in the defense team’s attempt to free the rapist? In this case, the defense attorney turned on Pack – saying he had conducted his own investigation and that he tried to influence witnesses against Barreto. The attorney told reporters outside the courtroom that when the case was originally filed as manslaughter, Pack didn’t like it, which led to his actions.
Pack testified he had indeed talked to people, trying to clarify the events that resulted in the loss of his two young children. He said he and his wife went to the Danville home of the family who employed Barreto as a nanny, seeking the truth about her alleged drinking. He also said he offered to sign a document promising not to sue them because he thought this fear might cause them to withhold knowledge of their nanny’s problems.
Apparently the jury did not buy the idea that Pack purposely set out to thwart justice. What parent wouldn’t try to get to the bottom of such a tragedy? Losing your children is a grief so deep that no parent should have to endure the pain. Who wouldn’t seek the truth, no matter how awkward for the others involved? When will blaming the victim no longer be a part of our system?
Through all the theatrics, the charges and countercharges, we held our breath. The jury of well-intentioned citizens heard the evidence – along with the theatrics – and waded through it to reach a conclusion. In the end, justice was served.
