The lead article is headed “Mystery visitor at trial of nurse” and continues “During Woomer murder trial, a Philhaven employee told judge in chambers that mother of dead boy stayed there. Judge sealed records, but will hold hearing Monday on motion.”
WATCHDOG: A wag of the tail for the Sunday News spotlighting a story which is most notable because, on its own, there is little news worthy about it.
Rather the Watchdog senses that it is a manifestation of concerns that many of us have for the conviction of visiting nurse Joy O’Shea Woomer on third-degree murder charges, which led to a sentence of seven to 20 years imprisonment.
Also surprising was that “A jury had quickly convicted Woomer, a mother of two and the former program director at Holy Spirit Lutheran Church. Woomer, who has maintained her innocence, said she has no prior relation to Brent Weaver and no motive to kill him.” It is hard to believe that there was no one who would have been concerned about the paucity of evidence and the significant possibility that Woomer was not guilty and thus, at least initially, reluctant to go along with the others. How come the haste?
But the Watchdog feels that the real problem here does not lie with the jury and certainly not with the judge who is subject to the constraints of the law. But rather, the responsibility lies with the district attorney.
There is no reason to believe that Woomer meant to do ill to the child. Why would she? Her entire life testifies to her commitment to helping others.
If she gave medicine without a prescription to the eleven-year old Brent Weaver, it was either to allay his pain or, at worst, make things easier for herself. There seems to be an appropriate charge for that: “Reckless endangerment.”
We saw recently where the district attorney’s so charged William Carter, MD, and, in both circumstances, a professional administered medicine without an appropriate prescription.
Is it possible that District Attorney Craig Stedman learned something from the Draconian Woomer charge that resulted in a more appropriate charge for Carter?
The Watchdog is on record that he might have exercised the time honored prerogative of a jury of ignoring evidence and finding ‘Not guilty’ to the charge of third-degree murder. On the other hand, it would have been a lot easier to have gone along with the conviction of Woomer for the lesser charge of reckless endangerment.
We know that the criminal justice system can only try to do justice. Introduction of DNA testing that proved many convicts were actually innocent certainly made that point. The Woomer case seems to cry out for mercy. Let us hope that the system will somehow yet provide it.
