Keith Cook Case Study

Convicting Keith Cook, the Right Decision

The mock re-trial held in class provide a unique perspective and allowed many of us to reassesses our personal views about the 1998 California court case over the death of Jadine Russell. Keith Cook a mechanic hit and killed Mrs. Russell and injured several others while driving under the influence of alcohol and was subsequently tried for murder under the 1983 California “Watson Law” which allows for a charge of murder instead of manslaughter if the defendant has a previous DUI conviction and has signed documentation acknowledging the risks of again driving while intoxicated. Jadine Russell was severely injured and bleeding internally but refused blood transfusions due to the fact she was a Jehovah

Witness and which violated her beliefs. Doctors were of the opinion that a transfusion would have potentially saved her life. This choice ultimately set the stage for the defense’s legal argument that due to her transfusion refusal she contributed to her own death and thus Keith Cook was not responsible for her death. This trail was the first known case where the defendant’s legal team attempted to portray the injured party as either at fault or contributing to their own death. This is why I jumped at the chance to play the role of the prosecuting attorney and I want to explain and elaborate on why my opinions are little changed but I believe are important to each of us as Americans.
Acting as one of the prosecuting attorneys allowed me to defend my belief not in religion but in the Constitution, its definition of religious freedom, and the American way of life. I am far from being what one would consider a religious individual, nor do I consider myself even remotely knowledgeable on the variety of religious options available to us as Americans. What I do consider myself to be is a Constitutionalist who believes that these decisions based on faith are as real and genuine to those of a particular belief as any material object one can hold in their hand for those who are either not religious or atheist. Ultimately, this type of defense was an attempt at distracting the jury from the facts presented in this case and which I would like to expound on.
Keith Cook the defendant was convicted less than 2 years prior to the accident which killed Jadine Russell.

This flagrant disregard for both the law and others safety demonstrates how Keith Cook was and should have been held accountable for his choices. Numerous individuals at the party where Mr. Cook became intoxicated tried to help him home safety to no avail. His blood alcohol content was more than twice the level required to convict him for DUI. Without question, Jading Russell was definitely in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, her decision to refuse potentially lifesaving transfusions believed to be perfectly acceptable by the defendant and his attorneys does not meet the standard of contributory negligence in a situation wholly caused by the defendant’s negligence. This type of defense would appear to be rationalized by the statement” if you don’t like the way I drive stay off of the sidewalk”! This is a social concept first postulated by David Matza and Gresham Sykes during their work on Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association in the 1950’s which seems to have gained acceptance some social acceptance in the last few years. To quote Wikipedia, techniques of neutralization are a theoretical series of methods by which those who commit illegitimate acts temporarily neutralize certain values within themselves which would normally prohibit them from carrying out such acts, such as morality, obligation to abide by the law, and so on. In simpler terms, it is a psychological method for people to turn off “inner protests” when they do, or are about to do something they themselves perceive as wrong”. Is this the sole reason the jury convicted Keith Cook? Hardly! This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution in Europe and thus the Bill of Right’s first statement is the declaration of religious

freedom.
Jadine Russell made a conscience choice guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to not accept any transfusions that could have saved her life based on her religious beliefs. This course of action though is considered an unforgiveable sin in her religion and condemns to hell for her choice. To a Jehovah Witness this choice would seem to be quite simple, trade a few more years here on Earth for an afterlife of eternal damnation. And how does this choice absolve Keith Cook of any responsibility in causing the condition which forced the decision? It doesn’t. Americans as a whole may not have the deep religious beliefs they once did when this country was founded but demonstrated they still respect the rights of others who do.
This case ultimately demonstrates, even if only by a slim margin (the class vote resulted in a 5 to 4 decision for conviction), that Americans still hold religious beliefs are a cornerstone to America’s values. The resulting decision by a jury established that religious freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights takes priority over any liability laws, and helped to establish legal precedent preventing future litigation which attempts to hold victims accountable for injuries caused by another party based on religious choices or beliefs. You don’t have to believe in God to quickly understand that freedom of choice not religion is the foundation on which this country is founded.