The reopened case of the so-called Itaewon Burger King murder poses a challenge to one of key principles that underpin the criminal law ― one should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The case had two suspects ― Arthur Patterson and Edward Lee ― in the killing of Cho Choong-pil in the restroom of the hamburger outlet in Itaewon on the night of April 3, 1997. Lee, 18 at the time of the murder, was charged with stabbing Cho, 23, a college student, nine times with a pocket knife in the restroom and found guilty in the district and high courts before the Supreme Court overturned the verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence on Sept. 30, 1998.
Patterson, 18 also and Lee’s friend, was extradited 16 years after he fled to the United States last month. Born to an American father and Korean mother, he was found guilty of possessing an illegal weapon and attempting to destroy evidence and was temporarily released. As the prosecution mistakenly failed to ban him from leaving the country, he went back to the U.S.
Now, in the first hearing, Thursday, Patterson claimed he didn’t kill Cho and claimed that Lee was the killer. The dilemma is that Lee and Patterson were alone with Cho so either of the two could be the killer. Since Lee was cleared, it should be Patterson who is guilty as charged or so we think. Theoretically, Patterson would be deprived of the legally entitled benefit of doubt since theoretically he has to be the perpetrator.
The reality is that he is enjoying it to the fullest extent, keeping himself from life imprisonment. His friend Lee was given life in the first trial, which was reduced to 20 years. He also is protected by the rule of double jeopardy from future conviction on the same case. Seeing him claiming his innocence appears to be an unpardonable mockery of law and justice. The animosity of the late Cho’s parents is understandable because they have waited for 18 years for the murderer to be found and justice served. They may as well think that a small technical mistake had let their son’s murderer get away. Besides, it is beyond doubt that the prosecution made a rudimentary mistake by not charging both Lee and Patterson for murder.
Once again, the burden of proof is now on the prosecution, which has to retract their original assumption that Patterson was too short to stab Cho in the neck. Now, it claims that it is possible because Cho was drunk and had his head lowered. Lee is said to be ready to testify Patterson killed Cho. Though there should be little chance of no conviction, would we remain as committed to the presumption of innocence for a murder suspect, if Patterson walks? No.