As the world waited to see if a judge would scrap the murder verdict in the shaking death of 8-month-old Matthew Eappen, the battle over the British au pair’s fate spilled into the court of public opinion. ““We don’t believe in the Oprah-fication of this case,’’ Woodward attorney Andrew Good told the Boston Herald–even as both sides Oprahed day and night. It was a reminder that high-profile cases today face two judgments–one from the court and one from the public. At stake in America’s talk-show echo chamber: the reputations of the parents, the celebrity lawyers and the au pair agency that brought Woodward from England to the United States. Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, an appeals specialist who has begun advising the defense team, noted, ““Juries are not the last word anymore.''
The judge’s last word, though, was the one everyone wanted to hear. Judge Hiller Zobel listened to a series of complex legal arguments, including a defense plea to reduce the conviction from second-degree murder to manslaughter–a charge that the defense chose to keep the jury from considering. If Zobel sides with Scheck & Co., he could set Woodward free or reduce her sentence. (At the moment, Louise faces life in prison, with parole possible after 15 years.) But last week all the judge settled on was an unprecedented plan to make his ruling over the Internet. Then he took two days off to attend a judges’ conference, stretching the suspense into this week. The judge, an erstwhile reporter, was clearly relishing the limelight. He was even willing to return NEWSWEEK’s phone call–but just to say he couldn’t say anything.
Zobel has a reputation for quirkiness. The bow-tied judge decorates his bench with fresh flowers. But he is tough on lawyers appearing before him: attorneys call him ““Hiller the Killer’’ for his willingness to rein in their courtroom performances. He is also an independent thinker who has written about the flaws of the jury system. Twice before, Zobel has overruled jury verdicts of second-degree murder. Though the decisions may have been legally impeccable, neither ended neatly. In 1984 he granted a new trial to a former police officer who had killed a man during a liquor and drug binge. The Massachusetts State Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. But three years later the ex-cop was convicted a second time of second-degree murder. And, in 1981, Zobel reduced a second-degree-murder conviction to manslaughter, cutting the sentence to 16 years in prison. Last month that same defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for his role in another killing.
If the judge wasn’t talking, the Eappens certainly were. They felt compelled to launch a public-relations campaign to explain that they should not be faulted for leaving their child in the hands of an au pair. ““To me it’s like blaming the rape victim for being raped,’’ Sunil Eappen told Larry King. They also released a touching picture of a comatose Matthew. While both Eappens are physicians, they live modestly. Their three-bedroom, one-bath home in the Boston suburb of Newton is the smallest on its block. Still, Deborah Eappen, who has a part-time ophthalmology practice, recognized the widespread public backlash against working mothers who delegate major child-care responsibilities. And she sensed that observers, fairly or unfairly, were concerned about her stoic demeanor in the face of tragedy. ““If I am crying, I am not speaking,’’ she said. ““And if my goal is to answer questions and speak, I try not to cry.’’ Later Deborah told reporters that she hoped to have more children but would never again leave them in the care of a stranger. And she’s considering quitting her medical practice to crusade against child abuse.
The defense divvied up the media chores. Local attorneys handled Boston reporters; Scheck, the New York lawyer who was part of the O. J. Simpson defense team, talked to the national press. They had a lot to explain, most notably their all-or-nothing legal strategy to prevent the jury from considering–and possibly compromising on–the lesser manslaughter charge. Scheck’s co-counsel Harvey Silverglate assured the judge that the decision ““was not made out of hubris.’’ Perhaps, but the defense had some reason to be confident of victory. Its decision to limit the jury’s options was at least partly based on pricey market research. Several paid mock juries reportedly acquitted Woodward when their only option was a murder conviction. The public attempts at self-justification, however, bordered on farce. After District Attorney Thomas Reilly denounced defense medi- cal theories as ““foolish,’’ the au pair’s lawyers challenged him to a debate before a blue-ribbon panel of medical experts.
The prosecution argued that the jury had convicted Woodward on a vast accumulation of evidence–and urged the judge not to ““substitute yourself as the 13th juror.’’ Prosecutors said the defense was not entitled to a second chance at a manslaughter option it had rejected. ““This court should not allow [Woodward] to benefit and have it both ways,’’ said Assistant District Attorney Gerard Leone. In rebuttal, Scheck relied on a simple plea: justice would not be served by the teenager’s serving a life sentence. ““I’ll leave it to your conscience,’’ he told the judge.
Whatever Zobel decides, the case has already had a profound effect on a matter of conscience in Massachusetts. A bill to reinstate the death penalty had seemed sure to pass, but it failed by a single vote when one lawmaker reversed his earlier stand and voted against the measure. His decision, he said, stemmed from the Woodward case and his new doubts about entrusting juries with life-or-death decisions. Many Americans share such doubts. A now famous judge suggested in a 1995 article that the only thing wrong with juries is that they are human. That author was Hiller Zobel–and he is now Louise Woodward’s last chance.
