FA+
Shop
Last few weeks have been very unusual, part 3
3 years ago
So, to recap: Called to jury duty. Trial was primarily a domestic violence case, in which someone went to an ex-girlfriend's apartment and demanded his keys, and that she call him Jesus Christ. When she didn't do either (the first because she didn't have any keys of his, and the second because come on) he hit her. Trial started on the October 24th, wrapped up on the 31st. No, we jurors were not allowed to wear costumes in the jury box despite it being Halloween. I asked.
Time to deliberate.
First thing to do was to pick a foreman. Or forewoman. Foreperson. This is the person who would read out the verdict, eventually, and in the meantime was supposed to control the debate as a moderator and fill out any paperwork. The woman who volunteered and was chosen was... well. Not ideal, in my opinion, though of course I didn't know that at the time.
As you may recall, there were two charges. #1 was violation of an No-Contact Order. This was a felony, because it resulted in an assult. For the defendant to be guilty, he had to meet 5 criteria, such as did he do this within my state (yes, duh), did he know about the order ahead of time (yes, he violated it before minus the assault, and he mentioned it in a recorded phone call from jail), and so on. I don't remember all 5 - that's what I get for writing this a month after the fact - but the only one that was even slightly in doubt was whether he had actually hit her. A few of the jurors didn't like the prosecution's main witness, considering his testimony dubious. Still, after about an hour we had decided that he had, in fact, hit her, and voted unanimously guilty on charge #1.
Charge #2 was much, much harder to come to an agreement over. This one was "residential burglary," which we were told has nothing to do with stealing but has to do with being where he wasn't supposed to be. As with #1, there was a list of criteria he had to meet to be considered guilty. He had to intentionaly go to or remain at a place where he wasn't allowed to be, and holy shit did we debate the crap out of the definition of "intent."
By the end of the first day, we still hadn't come to a decision. We asked how to put in for a mistrial, but the judge returned with a paper that read essentially, "The jury may continue deliberations." Yeah, gee. Thanks, Judge.
So, we debated for most of the week. We got let out at lunchtime every day for 90 minutes or so, and then we were back at it - with "it" sometimes being each other's throats. Things got pretty heated at times. I was all for calling him guilty, because to me it was pretty clear. The other side was using such arguments as "The person who told him to leave paid for the apartment, but wasn't the resident and therefore had no authority to tell him to get out." Which to my mind is splitting hairs a little too fine, if not just utter bullshit. There's also the fact that he intentionally went there - but the other side said he intentionally went in order to retrieve a key, not to assault her. The pro-guilt side said that didn't matter, he went there on purpose and was thus guilty.
The leader of the other side continually said he was willing to be convinced, but that was bullshit because he was pretty dismissive of our arguments. And then he'd claim we were dismissive of his. Ugh. Meanwhile, the forewoman just sat there and said she was reluctant to convict because she didn't want to put a guy away when he might not be guilty.
It was maddening.
Eventually, late on Wednesday we asked the judge for a mistrial, again. This time he granted it. We were called into the courtroom and asked for the verdicts. Guilty on charge 1, hung jury on charge 2. Cannot come to an agreement. Mistrial.
Well, at least we got him on the felony.
After the trial, we were given the opportunity to talk to the attorneys to clue them in on our thinking. It was strictly voluntary, but every single juror went in. (The bailiff said since the trial was over we could take any seat, and I wondered what would happen if I went and took the judge's.) There we told them what we thought - basically, the prosecution did a great job proving the first charge but had largely ignored the second one. Without any direct testimony about it, we were left to figure it out from the implications stemming from the first chage, and some of the jurors were just unable to jump that gap.
And then it was over. I went home and called work, letting them know that I won't be in on Thursday night but will be back the next week. (That message somehow got misunderstood; when I went in on Tuesday evening I found they thought I had called off for the next week but would be back on Thursday. So I had company on my shift that night, which was unusual. But Wednesday was back to normal.) I spent the weekend trying to get my sleep schedule back where it ought to be to work a graveyard shift, something that I honestly am STILL trying to accomplish. Ugh.
So, my thoughts on the entire process: long. Much longer than it should have been, thanks to a few obstinate people. Open-mindedness is fine, but at some point you really need to actually listen to what the other side was saying. Their scenarios for how this charge fails to meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" bordered on absurd at times. It was, to my mind, not reasonable. So a case that should have been a day of debate, at most, turned into most of a week of arguments and frustration. I now understand why experienced attorneys say no case is a sure thing until the verdict has been read.
Speaking of attorneys, things in court were not at all like on TV. Court procedurals have drama to them, and good actors. The attorneys in my trial did their damnedest to be as bland and unemotional as possible. And on TV they only show the important witnesses, and indeed the important questions, all of which clues viewers in that this particular testimony IS important. In real life, we had to listen to everything, and we needed to figure out for ourselves what was important and what wasn't. Much more difficult, and potentially boring except a man's freedom was on the line. None of us wanted to fuck this up, so we paid attention.
This was a fascinating experience, one I'm glad I partook in. But I'm not eager to do it again.
Time to deliberate.
First thing to do was to pick a foreman. Or forewoman. Foreperson. This is the person who would read out the verdict, eventually, and in the meantime was supposed to control the debate as a moderator and fill out any paperwork. The woman who volunteered and was chosen was... well. Not ideal, in my opinion, though of course I didn't know that at the time.
As you may recall, there were two charges. #1 was violation of an No-Contact Order. This was a felony, because it resulted in an assult. For the defendant to be guilty, he had to meet 5 criteria, such as did he do this within my state (yes, duh), did he know about the order ahead of time (yes, he violated it before minus the assault, and he mentioned it in a recorded phone call from jail), and so on. I don't remember all 5 - that's what I get for writing this a month after the fact - but the only one that was even slightly in doubt was whether he had actually hit her. A few of the jurors didn't like the prosecution's main witness, considering his testimony dubious. Still, after about an hour we had decided that he had, in fact, hit her, and voted unanimously guilty on charge #1.
Charge #2 was much, much harder to come to an agreement over. This one was "residential burglary," which we were told has nothing to do with stealing but has to do with being where he wasn't supposed to be. As with #1, there was a list of criteria he had to meet to be considered guilty. He had to intentionaly go to or remain at a place where he wasn't allowed to be, and holy shit did we debate the crap out of the definition of "intent."
By the end of the first day, we still hadn't come to a decision. We asked how to put in for a mistrial, but the judge returned with a paper that read essentially, "The jury may continue deliberations." Yeah, gee. Thanks, Judge.
So, we debated for most of the week. We got let out at lunchtime every day for 90 minutes or so, and then we were back at it - with "it" sometimes being each other's throats. Things got pretty heated at times. I was all for calling him guilty, because to me it was pretty clear. The other side was using such arguments as "The person who told him to leave paid for the apartment, but wasn't the resident and therefore had no authority to tell him to get out." Which to my mind is splitting hairs a little too fine, if not just utter bullshit. There's also the fact that he intentionally went there - but the other side said he intentionally went in order to retrieve a key, not to assault her. The pro-guilt side said that didn't matter, he went there on purpose and was thus guilty.
The leader of the other side continually said he was willing to be convinced, but that was bullshit because he was pretty dismissive of our arguments. And then he'd claim we were dismissive of his. Ugh. Meanwhile, the forewoman just sat there and said she was reluctant to convict because she didn't want to put a guy away when he might not be guilty.
It was maddening.
Eventually, late on Wednesday we asked the judge for a mistrial, again. This time he granted it. We were called into the courtroom and asked for the verdicts. Guilty on charge 1, hung jury on charge 2. Cannot come to an agreement. Mistrial.
Well, at least we got him on the felony.
After the trial, we were given the opportunity to talk to the attorneys to clue them in on our thinking. It was strictly voluntary, but every single juror went in. (The bailiff said since the trial was over we could take any seat, and I wondered what would happen if I went and took the judge's.) There we told them what we thought - basically, the prosecution did a great job proving the first charge but had largely ignored the second one. Without any direct testimony about it, we were left to figure it out from the implications stemming from the first chage, and some of the jurors were just unable to jump that gap.
And then it was over. I went home and called work, letting them know that I won't be in on Thursday night but will be back the next week. (That message somehow got misunderstood; when I went in on Tuesday evening I found they thought I had called off for the next week but would be back on Thursday. So I had company on my shift that night, which was unusual. But Wednesday was back to normal.) I spent the weekend trying to get my sleep schedule back where it ought to be to work a graveyard shift, something that I honestly am STILL trying to accomplish. Ugh.
So, my thoughts on the entire process: long. Much longer than it should have been, thanks to a few obstinate people. Open-mindedness is fine, but at some point you really need to actually listen to what the other side was saying. Their scenarios for how this charge fails to meet the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" bordered on absurd at times. It was, to my mind, not reasonable. So a case that should have been a day of debate, at most, turned into most of a week of arguments and frustration. I now understand why experienced attorneys say no case is a sure thing until the verdict has been read.
Speaking of attorneys, things in court were not at all like on TV. Court procedurals have drama to them, and good actors. The attorneys in my trial did their damnedest to be as bland and unemotional as possible. And on TV they only show the important witnesses, and indeed the important questions, all of which clues viewers in that this particular testimony IS important. In real life, we had to listen to everything, and we needed to figure out for ourselves what was important and what wasn't. Much more difficult, and potentially boring except a man's freedom was on the line. None of us wanted to fuck this up, so we paid attention.
This was a fascinating experience, one I'm glad I partook in. But I'm not eager to do it again.
The deliberations took a few days, mostly because one person - a prof over at UC Irvine - wanted to change the auction system by this case. She seemed misguided. I guess I can't blame her in retrospect of wanting to change it, but that's another story. Anyway, we had the same opportunity to speak with the attorneys; the excavator's attorney asked me why, and I was succinct: he was expected to read the frickin' manual, and he didn't read the frickin' manual (i.e., the contract). The guy even admitted in court that he did not read the auction contract.
Glad it's over for you, though. I wish they paid juries better.