LETTERS: PARALLELS OF TRIALS, IMPEACHMENT

To the editor:

I fail to see what the problem with the impeachment trial is besides political timidity. The parallels between a regular trial and the impeachment seem to be clear to me.

In a regular trial, the evidence is gathered by the police, in this case by Ken Starr. The evidence goes before the prosecuting attorney, in this case the House of Representatives. If he says we have a case, it goes to trial, in this case the Senate. The trial is held with impartial (ho, ho) jurors, and all the necessary witnesses are called. Then the jury lends a verdict.

The jurors do not sign and swear to an impartial verdict and them come out and say they will never impeach the defendant before a single witness is called or a single statement has been made by the prosecutor.

It seems to me that with all the lawyers in the Senate, there ought to be someone with some common sense.

RALPH E. FLORI SR.

Cape Girardeau