Important Note:
Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1
My 4 days on a jury
Posted at: Apr/07/2012 : Posted by: mel
Related Category: The Law,
First of all it is important to say that despite the advice of my coworkers, I have always looked forward to the opportunity of serving on a jury. There is of course the curiosity issue; after years of dramatic TV shows where the guilty party confesses on the stand, I wanted to see what a real trial looks like. There is also my strong belief in the value of participating in our American Judicial System. Recently I had the chance to satisfy these desires and though I would document the experience. With respect to obeying the judge’s orders, none of this was put to paper until the trial had concluded. Some people speak of jury duty with distain and frustration. I have even met some who consider it unconstitutional claiming it is “involuntary servitude.” It is clear to anyone who has read much of the writing of our founding fathers that they did not trust judges; this is probably the reason that “trial by jury” is mentioned so many times in our founding documents. Since most if not all U.S. jury systems provide a stipend for service, the argument of “involuntary servitude” is clearly moot and we can move beyond that. For me jury service is a matter of civic responsibility. Most of us have heard the term “jury of our peers” numerous times. In truth, the Constitution only guarantees a speedy trial by an impartial jury. The reference to peers is to my knowledge from the text of the Magna-Carta which doesn’t surprise me since we borrowed heavily from the best parts of English law. Still, this is an important theme. Should I ever be accused of a crime, I would not want to be tried by a professional jury, nor would I want to be tried by a jury of the unemployed and retired…this may make more sense later. There are a variety of different systems used for management of potential jurors to hopefully minimize the amount of time wasted while determining if they are needed or not. With my experience being very limited I can only speak to the system used at the courthouse my summons directed me to. My summons directed me to appear for service first thing on a Wednesday morning at my local courthouse where approximately 100 potential new jurors are summoned each week day. We spent the first hour doing a few minor paperwork things, listening to a judge thank us for our attendance and participation. We also watched a short video where jurors talked of how much they enjoyed serving on a jury. I personally found this a little contrived and farfetched. The notion that doing something of civic importance could be called enjoyable was a little insulting to me and some of those seated around me in the way it was presented. After these housekeeping items we were left to entertain ourselves, some brought books, some computers, some appeared to sit or pace aimlessly. I entertained myself for the next 2 hours with my laptop computer and the courthouses wireless internet access. After 2 hours my name along with 40 others was called and we were told to report to one of the courtrooms. Shortly after that the rest of the potential jurors were dismissed with thanks for their time. After mulling outside the courtroom for 30 minutes the bailiff appeared to announce that they were not ready for us and we should go to lunch returning at 1:30 PM. Considering everything we know about “just-in-time” supply management and delivery, I was beginning to get just a little frustrated with the way our time was being, dare I say “wasted.” Shortly after 1:30 PM the bailiff ushered us all into the courtroom assigning us numbers as we entered. Numbers 1-12 where seated in the jury box and the rest in the gallery area. My initial number was 8. After being seated the judge introduced himself and the lawyers for the defense and prosecution. The rules for how court would be conducted were explained then the questioning began. Apparently in concert with the two lawyers, the judge had approximately a dozen questions developed that we were each asked to respond to after presenting a brief bio on ourselves. The bios were really quite interesting because it showed that we were truly a cross section of society from truck drivers to data analyst and cooks. The questions took close to 2 hours because each was presented, then each juror polled going around the room for their response to the question. We were asked about relationships with law enforcement, whether we had ever been the victim of an assault and everything in between. It was obvious by the nature of the questions that the case involved assault and the judge and lawyers were looking for potential bias. We were then all sent out of the courtroom while the judge and lawyers did their debating on who should be a juror. I know that on TV, every time the lawyers need to talk to the judge, they adjourn to the judge’s chambers (office). In our case we were all ushered out of the courtroom to the hallway. Once we returned to the courtroom beginning with juror number 1, the lawyers announced whether they should stay or go. Ultimately I was shifted from 8 to 5. The result was that the top 12 were seated as the jury and 13 & 14 were designated as alternates. Everyone beyond 14 was thanked for their time and allowed to go home then the rest of us were sworn in as the jury for this criminal trial. Being close to 4:00 PM the judge announced that we were done for the day and to return the next morning. After being seated Thursday morning our court began with a 30 minute PowerPoint which was also read to us by the judge. We were taught about real and circumstantial evidence. We were taught about facts verses opening and closing statements by the lawyers. Additionally, we were encouraged to take notes, but not to such a degree that it would impede our ability to watch and listen to witnesses. After all this the trial began. The case was about a citizen being accused of assaulting a peace officer. The prosecuting attorney’s opening statement described a situation where the police were called by request to a citizen’s home. While attempting to explain why he was upset the citizen became incensed with the police and told them to leave. When the second officer did not leave the home fast enough the citizen postured against him in a threating way. Feeling threatened the officer chose to be proactive in his defense and struck the citizen followed by ultimately controlling him to the ground. The defense attorney’s opening remarks began with a similar story, but finished much differently. When the second officer began leaving, the citizen got up to close the door in frustration. Apparently, without provocation the second officer over interpreted this movement towards the door and assaulted the citizen. The Defense also made it clear they intended to prove that the second officer had a pattern of behavior leaning towards violence. Much like listening to two children, their stories start from the same place, but finished differently. It always amazes me how much basic parenting skills and experience can be applied to adult life situations. The evidence and testimony portion of the trial was actually just a couple of hours. The first witness was a female officer of many years’ experience. She described getting the call from the upset citizen and deciding to go to his home as follow up. Once at the home she entered with a younger and larger male officer has her backup. She described a person who was visually upset as he described being threatened over the phone by a family member. He apparently wanted her (the officer) to do specific actions with respect to the threatening individual which she would not. As it became clear that he would not get what he wanted he became more and more agitated including waving his arms, spitting and getting louder as he complained. Frustrated, he told the officers to “get the f&*# out of my house.” She left with the male officer following closely behind. Seconds after leaving she turned back towards the threshold and became aware that there was a scuffle in the home. She re-entered seeing the citizen on the floor with the male officer over him. She assisted the male officer in getting the citizen restrained with hand cuffs. She did not see or hear what instigated the situation resulting in the physical contact and restraint. She then described how medics were called before he was transported to a local hospital. She was also questioned about her 14 years on the force and the related amount of training. The female officers cross examination did not in my view manifest anything new. The next witness was the younger male officer. He described hearing the call and meeting the female officer at the residence. He then described entering effectively as her backup. His description of the citizen’s lack of satisfaction with the female peace officers response was similar to hers. Upon leaving he described the citizen as getting up from the couch and approached him at the door threshold. He further described the citizen as having budging blood vessels on his neck and forehead. He then described how he put his hand out as though signaling stop and firmly instructed the citizen to “sit down.” He then described how the citizen rather than sitting back down adopted an aggressive posture with clenched fists at his side. In response to this posture and sensing a threat he punched the citizen under the right eye followed by at least 2 more strikes. This was followed by wrestling him to the ground and applying the carotid restraint to get him under control. This all transpired in a matter of seconds. Near the end of this scuffle the female officer entered the room and helped apply hand cuffs to the individual. At this point we were again told how the medics were called the citizen was treated before being transported in the police car to the hospital. The male officer was also questioned about his 6 years of law enforcement experience and related training. The defense attorney’s cross examination of the male officer was a more confrontational experience. He was questioned numerous times about how many times he did or did not strike the citizen, what equipment he had on his belt, the citizen’s posture and stance along with what was said just before the assault occurred. Clearly, the defense attorney was attempting to get the officer to contradict himself. The cross examination continued with a series of questions about the officers hobbies to which we learned that the officer spends a great deal of time training and competing in various forms of martial arts and wrestling. Lastly was the issue of the officer’s internet presence. He was asked the last time he had been to his “MySpace” page and he said it had been at least 4 years. The jury was then shown the page which included a graphic of an arrogant looking police officer with the tag line underneath “I am going to kick your ass and get away with it.” When asked about the graphic, the male officer claimed he had never seen it before. When asked how the graphic might have gotten there, he said it might have been done by his ex-wife who previously had access to his “MySpace” page. The final witness after a short break was the defendant as the first and only witness for the defense. As expected, this was the other telling of how events unfolded. The citizen described how he called the police to report that he had been threatened over the phone by a family member. In response the same officer who took his call came to his home along with a male officer. After becoming legitimately frustrated that they were not going to contact the family member he did tell them to get out of his house. After the female officer left his home the male officer moved to the front door. At this point he said he got up from his couch and approached the doorway to close the front door being very dissatisfied with the visit and did agree that he was agitated. He did agree that the male officer put his hand up and told him to “sit down” which he admitted to not complying with. He reiterated that he was in his own home and was intent only on shutting the door after the officer. When asked if his hands shortly after not obeying the “site down” statement he was unexpectedly punched in the eye and he did not remember much more after that except waking up in a pool of his own blood. When questioned repeatedly about this he felt that he was in his own home, just intent on closing the door, the officer was already standing over the threshold and that he was not intent on threatening the officer and did not feel he did anything that could be considered a threat to the officer. The defense also entered into evidence photo of the citizen that clearly showed he had a swollen face and an apparent bloody nose. Additionally we were shown the hospital report which stated that he was found to have two small broken bones under his right eye. The cross examination of the citizen by the prosecuting attorney did not get him to change his statement. He continued to state that his hands were not clenched as fists and that he got up from the couch only with the intent of closing the door being frustrated with the lack of action from the officer’s visit to his home. When asked why he did not obey the officers’ statement to “sit down” he reiterated that he was in his own home and did not believe he had to obey every command given by the officers. We did learn that he had been charged with assault twice before, one actually leading to a conviction over 17 years before. With the evidence portion of the trial over it was time for closing arguments. The defense attorney reiterated his argument that the defendant was not intent on striking the male officer and that he did not present himself in an aggressive posture with clenched fists. With the image of the “MySpace” prominently displayed on a large monitor for us to see, he stated that this was a case where an arrogant officer with a desire for violent physical behavior was out of control and without justification did assault and use excessive force on the defendant. In conclusion he stated that the evidence showed that the defendant did not assault the officer, rather….he was assaulted in his own home by a dangerous officer. The prosecuting attorneys closing argument was much more technical in nature. We were shown a PowerPoint which listed all the text in the law for what constituted assaulting a peace officer. She took the time to work through the nuts and bolts of the law one sentence, and sometimes one phrase at a time. She emphasized the portion of the law that stated the officer did not have to be physically contacted for it to be considered assault under the law. Instead, she focused on the portion of the law that referenced “intent”. If the officer perceived that there was intent to assault, it was assault and this made it therefore reasonable for the officer to respond to the intent in a proactive manner. This was reinforced by speaking again about the defendant’s aggressive posture along with clenched fists. Lastly she reminded us that the officer had told the defendant to “sit down” when he sensed a threat and instead the defendant continued to move towards him with fists clenched and vessels bulging. At this point it was late in the afternoon and the judge dismissed us for the day while the lawyers and the judge met to discuss the instructions that would be given to the jury. Friday morning began with another PowerPoint, this one being the jury instructions which were also line by line read to us by the judge. It was clearly that the lengthy instructions included input from all three parties. There was text reminding us was constituted evidence and what was not. We were told the minutia of the applicable laws along with concepts of reasonable interpretation. We were also told what we could and could not do while in deliberations. Most of the jury conduct was along expectations. Elect a foreman, let everyone have their say; stop discussing the case any time a juror leaves the room to go to the restroom, etc. After being escorted by the bailiff to a secluded room we were again reminded of the things we can and cannot do. We quickly settled in and elected a foreman. After a little random discussion the foreman went around the table polling each of us and we settled on the notion that we were 6v6 for guilty or not guilty. Jury deliberations are in my belief, the cornerstone of our judicial system. As mentioned earlier, the notion of a professional jury scares me. It was clear as we began to debate and discuss the trial, the evidence, and the laws before us, that each of us brought something different to the table. In reviewing the instructions given to the jury, some of us fixated on the details of the law emphasizing “intent.” In these paragraphs, if the peace officer felt intent was present, it was assault and they had the right to proactively defend themselves. Other people focused on a paragraph of the instructions talking about “what a reasonable person” would interpret as action leading to assault. We spent four hours Friday debating the details of the law, the evidence and the jury instructions; at the end of the day we were still pretty much split. The arguments on both sides were about intent verses reasonable expectation. Did the citizen actually posture in a threating way? Did the officer sense intent? Why was the second officer aware of so little? Did the officer have a tendency towards violence? Does not sitting down when told to by an officer represent aggression? Was the citizen just closing the door? Is it reasonable to assume that we have to obey all instructions while in our own home? Why didn’t the officer just take one more step backwards? Is it reasonable to assume that if you don’t sit down when told to, that the next thing will be the application of force? Our instructions were to not think about, talk about or do any research pertaining to the trial during the weekend. I had no problem avoiding the research aspect, but was dreading returning to the jury room on Monday. With a split jury that had not shifted one vote in 4 hours I was not optimistic for how Monday would unfold. To be honest, it was impossible not to think about the trial over the weekend though I did manage not to discuss it with anyone. I will confess that my vote was for guilty. The law was pretty specific about what constituted assault on a peace officer. If the officer perceived a union of intent and action even without actual physical contact it was assault. Both sided agreed that the citizen was in a heated and frustrated state of mind. Additionally, both sides agreed that that the officer said to “sit down.” Not complying with the verbal command could easily be perceived as intent and action. My problem was that our instructions also discussed “reasonable doubt”, and that this reasonable doubt should result in a not guilty verdict. When analyzing complex problems in my professional life I look both with a microscope at the fine grained details and from some distance at the overall scenario. The more I attempted to look at the overall picture from a distance, the less comfortable I was with a guilty verdict though I was unable to wrap my arms around why. While proud to be part of the process I was not optimistic about reaching a verdict any time soon. Additionally, work life still goes on, even while on jury duty. Over the past 3 days of jury service I had still spent hours each evening responding to client needs, data calls and general work related obligations. In one case I had a client who was somewhat frustrated that I was not available to solve one of their issues. I did not see this getting any easier if the deliberations went much longer. Returning to jury deliberations on Monday morning actually came with some dread. After 40 minutes of the same dead end debates we had the previous week the foreman took another vote, not surprisingly we were still a divided jury. At this point I suggested that we change the format. Rather than discussing in a point and counter-point format I asked for a presentation format. Each jury was to have not more than 4 minutes to say guilty or not and explain why without any debate from other jurors. This format was accepted and I was the third one to speak. Sometimes when thoughts are orated the come together differently than previously when just bouncing between the ears. I began by talking about the letter of the law for was constituted assault on a peace officer. In my mind it was clear that the union of intent and action had occurred. I went on to talk about the rest of the evidence and instructions. There is no doubt that if an officer told me to sit down I would do so without hesitation. I believed strongly that the majority of the people in the room would do the same. My question was; would a reasonable person expect that if they disobeyed that instruction in their own home, that the repercussion be a punch in the face? I honestly found doubt here. Additionally, I was bothered by the notion of training. There is no doubt that we give officers a variety of weapons and a great deal training so that they can wade into dangerous situation with some ability to protect themselves and the general public. We also I hope, we have trained peace officers to diffuse situations. There is an expression about throwing gasoline or throwing water on a fire. With the front door open, the female officer already outside, the male officer standing over the threshold, why couldn’t he take one additional step backwards? This was starting to feel like throwing gasoline. While I was strained to call the citizen innocent, our task was guilty or not guilty; with the foundation of not guilty being reasonable doubt. Having said all that I now said I had plenty of reasonable doubt and would therefore vote not guilty. I suspect that my thoughts stirred others. After completing twelve individual presentations we were at 2 votes for guilty and the rest for not guilty. It took about one more hour to move to a unanimous not guilty vote. A big part of our final decision was the concept of reasonable doubt. While none of us felt we would have disobeyed the officers’ command as the citizen did, we also felt it was not reasonable to expect to be hit next. A lot of this experience was about agreeing what the words meant. There is a big difference between guilty or innocent and guilty and not guilty. The citizen did lots of things wrong, but we did not feel the officers’ action was a reasonable outcome and this meant reasonable doubt. It is your choice to vote however you deem. Did we get it right or did we get it wrong? We found room for doubt and moved on that. I understand I could get called for jury service again in 12-18 months.
Comments (0) [Add Comment]
