Alan Dershowitz, Eliot Spitzer, Federal Judges, Jed Rakoff, Murder, Religion, Trials

A Hero Goes On Trial For Attempted Murder

By David Lat

Does this look like attempted murder and child endangerment to you?

If I hadn’t been in D.C. this past weekend (to attend the Federalist Society’s excellent annual convention), I would have been covering a major trial back in New York. On Sunday, a great patriarch stood trial on charges of attempted murder and child endangerment.
A trial on a Sunday? Well, it was no ordinary trial. In an educational event, Temple Emanu-El in Manhattan put the Biblical figure of Abraham on trial for attempting to kill his son Isaac.
Eliot Spitzer prosecuted; Alan Dershowitz defended. Who prevailed?

Professor Dershowitz, as reported by the New York Times. On count one, endangering the welfare of a child, 748 voted to acquit and 529 voted to convict. On count two, attempted murder, 687 voted to acquit and 590 voted to convict. For a closer look at the arguments offered by each advocate, see the Times.
(Acquitting a guy who wielded a knife over his own child and came thisclose to slitting the kid’s throat? It shakes one’s faith in the jury system. Or at least one’s faith in Eliot Spitzer; he couldn’t win this case, yet had all of Wall Street running scared?)
I spoke with Dershowitz earlier today about his victory over Spitzer, his former student. “For me it was a win-win,” Dershowitz said. “If Eliot won, well, I taught him everything he knows!” Dershowitz then praised his ex-pupil’s performance, saying that Spitzer “did a fantastic job — especially given the fact that he’s Biblically challenged,” i.e., doesn’t believe what’s in the Bible.
“I thought my best move was to seek to change the venue to an Orthodox synagogue,” Dershowitz added. “The next time we put any Biblical characters on trial, I will move to hold it at the Park East Syangogue.”
I also reached out to Judge Alison Nathan (S.D.N.Y.), who presided over the trial. She had warm words for both lawyers: “It was a treat for me to get to see these two luminaries in action. I particularly enjoyed all the playful trash taking that occurred in and outside the purview of the jury. Their level of preparation was substantial, and it was evident that they really got into character…. Truly, they were both outstanding lawyers, scholars (of both the legal and Talmudic variety), and thespians.”
Did Judge Nathan agree with the jury’s verdict of not guilty on both counts?
“As a general matter, I avoid the thought experiment of agreeing or disagreeing with jury verdicts,” Judge Nathan said. “Was it a rational and fair verdict rendered without fear or favor or passion or prejudice? Yes, it was. But could a rational jury of 1,300 of Abraham’s non-contemporary peers also have come out the other way? Sure.”
Judge Nathan did note, however, one possible problem with the trial: “Since many of the jurors were distant relatives of Abraham, I probably should have struck everyone for cause.”
P.S. Is there a double jeopardy issue too? This wasn’t the first time Abraham went on trial for the attempted murder of Isaac. Back in 2010, Judge Jed Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) presided over People v. Abraham — and delivered an awesome verdict in verse.
At Educational Event, a Modern Legal Interpretation of a Biblical Story [New York Times]
Bible’s Abraham to Be Tried in New York [Wall Street Journal]
People v. Abraham — Judge’s Verdict [Congregation Kol Ami]