Issue date: 11/20/07 Section: Opinion

The prosecution argues that it was a fatal attraction. The defense calls this an empty argument.

For three trials over the past two years, three different juries have slinked away from taking a unanimous stance.

When it comes to Irina Malinovskaya, the Wharton undergrad charged with murdering her ex-boyfriend's girlfriend Irina Zlotnikov, the American justice system deems her not guilty by default - a result of three hung juries.

Although "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the major stipulations of our legal system, the prosecution's steady overtaking of courtroom sentiment has raised questions as to a possible third retrial.

Given the brutality of the crime and the noticeable changes in juror opinion, then retried Malinovskaya should be.

Over the course of the three trials, juries moved from 11-1 in favor of acquittal to a 6-6 deadlock to an 10-2 vote in favor of conviction for first-degree murder, 8-4 for second-degree murder and conviction of obstruction of justice.

It doesn't take a legal expert to see in which direction the winds of opinion are blowing.

When it comes to a possible retrial, however, there's obviously the question of due process - Malinovskaya's right to a fair and speedy trial. Because she was labeled a "flight risk" (as a result of her Russian citizenship), her bail was set at $10 million, an impossible price for her family. As a result, Malinovskaya has spent more time in jail than her obstruction of justice conviction could possibly require.

But although a speedy trial is Malinovskaya's right, keeping possible murderers off the streets is the American public's right.

Which to choose?

On Thursday the DP ran an article ("Juror: State should retry Malinovskaya," 11/15/2007) in which juror Jacob Harrison argued that a third retrial was necessary in order for justice to be fully served.

Harrison said in the latest trial, unlike others, the prosecution brought the jury to the scene of crime. According to Harrison, this made a big difference in the jury's deliberations.

"You can't conceptualize it without being there," Harrison was quoted as saying.

Granted, this is the opinion of one juror, and is hardly grounds for conviction. But one can't help but wonder as to the validity of this opinion. The fact that Harrison was so adamant about the need for a retrial shouldn't be ignored, particularly with a murder as brutal as this one.

When the American public reads about bloody sneaker prints on a victim's chest (which just happen to be of the same size as a pair of Adidas sneakers Malinovskaya owns) and a skull beaten in with a blunt object, a mistrial simply isn't going to cut it.

There is, after all, no statute of limitations for a crime of this nature: a retrial would be justified legally. According to Penn Law professor Paul Robinson, the prosecution has already devoted so much time and effort into trying the defendant that they figure they might as well continue.

"The prosecution is making progress every time. They've invested so much, now they probably think, well, why not?" Robinson told the DP last week.

The prosecution's reasoning is irrelevant, as long as there's a retrial. But it should be about more than justification for years of time and energy. Excuse my naivete, but I believe it should be about the ever-elusive concept of truth.

I have not been sitting in on Malinovskaya's trials, but the evidence just seems overwhelming.

Not only did Malinovskaya look up directions online to her ex-boyfriend Robert Bondar's apartment, rent a car that was exactly the color and make of that seen and found on the scene of the crime, but on the day of the murder she was also allegedly seen outside Bondar's building.

But I digress: It is not my place to proclaim Malinovskaya's verdict. After all, maybe it was just bad timing … really, really, really bad timing.

But what are the chances?

Undoubtedly, Malinovskaya has the right to a speedy trial, but the public - and her future lovers in particular - have the right to know for sure that they will not be victim to Zlotnikov's or Bondar's respective fates.

Everything worth knowing we learned in kindergarten: safety first.

---

Michaela Tolpin is a College sophomore from North Caldwell, N.J. Her e-mail address is
tolpin@dailypennsylvanian.com. Tuesdays with Michaela appears on Tuesdays.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools