The Dumbest Trial of the Century has been discharged with a hung jury. Now that I’m free to talk about it, I’m going to vent.
First off, this was a bleeping marijuana possession case. The People contended that a substantial quantity of marijuana that had been found near, not in, the defendant’s apartment had been in the possession of the defendant. The People’s case had holes you could drive a truck through. The detective on whose uncorroborated testimony the prosecution’s entire case was based was caught in several, um, inconsistencies while he was on the witness stand.
Deliberations began yesterday morning. Just over an hour into the deliberations we took a vote — 11 not guilty, 1 guilty.
You can probably guess the rest. The one holdout wouldn’t budge, even though (after two full days of attempting to “deliberate”) he was unable to explain why he was certain the defendant was guilty. The fellow changed his “reasoning” several times over the past two days, but not his guilty verdict. Finally his “reasoning” devolved into guilt by association — drugs were found near (not in, remember) the defendant’s apartment. A Yonkers detective said the drugs belonged to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant was guilty.
And yes, the juror was an elderly white man, and the defendant was black (as was the prevaricating detective). Do I think racism was a factor? Hell, yes. But I suspect stupid was a factor, also — the juror lacked the mental capacity to understand abstract concepts like “burden of proof” or even “evidence.”
I was the jury forepersonlady, so the composition and rhetoric of notes sent to the judge were under my purview. I became so rattled I could barely crank out cohesive sentences, and I guess my last note (of about 4:50 pm today) was unhinged enough the judge took pity on us and declared a hung jury.
And here’s the kicker — as a clump of us jurors hustled out of the courthouse, we encountered the defense attorney. And he guessed without being told which juror was the problem. Apparently his client, the defendant, had been the one to insist that man be seated on the jury over the attorney’s advise otherwise. The defendant had a “feeling” about the juror, the attorney said.
There’s a moral here, somewhere.
And yes, I was terribly disappointed that I didn’t get to stand up in court and announce a verdict. I’ve always wanted to do that. It’s unlikely I’ll get another chance.
I’m going to get tipsy now. Regular blogging resumes tomorrow.
Thanks for doing your civic duty, Barb…
I skated tha last time I had jury dury…They had us outside the courtroom, ready to go through selection when the defendent copped a plea…And it was a murder case…I wasn’t at all disappointed not to sit through the thing…
As a kid, I watched parts of a famous murder case in P.B. that seemed pretty surreal at the time…Doubt if they’ve gotten any better at it…
I’m surprised that you were even selected to be on the jury. Here in “almost” rural Louisiana if one has a grade school education they will be excluded from the jury because they are not usually of the defendant’s peer group. That unwritten requirement eliminates most thinking adults but wastes a lot of their time because they still get called for polling purposes.
Preston — one of the jurors was a sure enough ER physician Another was a retired teacher with (I’m pretty sure) a master’s degree. I’m guessing more than half of the jurors were college graduates.
I kind of expected you would be chosen as the “forepersonlady”. I´m curious, did you give your occupation as “blogger” when asked?
Joe — I don’t think I told the court I was a “blogger”; I think I said I was a “political activist” with a web site. But I may have used the word “blogger” at some point. I’m surprised that didn’t get me bounced.
I got the honor of being forepersonlady because I was the first person chosen for the jury. The judge said that in his court, Juror Number One is always the foreperson. Several other jurors would have done the job at least as well.
Actually, I’m kind of surprised they’d have a journalist as a forepersonlady, but then it’s a jury-voted position, isn’t it? (got myself excused from jury duty when I told the judge that the prosecuting attorney’s questioning of the jury pool was racist and never got to that point)
There is a lesson here but no solution. Some people have a slave mentality to authority figures. The idiot in question was sure the defendant was guilty because charges were brought by ‘authority’ and as a loyal citizen, he was going to support ‘authority’.
The response I often get when I use the word ‘torture’ associated with the Bush administration is a look like I am deluded and unhinged. Bush is the president (authority). The USA is always ‘the good guys’. Torture is something the ‘bad guys’ do. Don’t bother me with the facts.
Once, there was a majority in denial. If the polls are accurate, it’s becoming a minority. I will continue to bother family and friends with facts. I am making a dent in their complacnecy; their defenses are sounding hollow – to them, I think.
Have a good ‘tipsy’, Maha.
I tried marijuana once..it made me want to rape and kill.
What kind of weight was the defendant charged with?
It is almost certainly a good thing that in your jurisdiction you can end up on a jury. That’s how it is supposed to work, isn’t it?
Where I live, my actually serving would be unthinkable. I am called once a year and always excused. My unsuitability is 1) my profession is “researcher” which scares them all; 2) I do tend to know a little something about a lot of things and I tell the truth about that; 3) I know a lot of lawyers — so too often I know someone among the court folks.
I’d like to serve if only to experience how it works. But that is simply not going to happen. Makes me feel “not part of the people” since I’m thought to be an unsuitable peer to any defendant.
Maha,
I was a jury foreman on a 5 member civil trial. Unanimous with virtually no debate for the defendant. But I was also on a 12 person jury were there was a death but do not recall the exact charges (not murder). I was the lone holdout against conviction. I felt the dead person had contributed significantly to his own death by driving his motorcycle well in excess of the speed limit. Defendant’s problem was that he was poor. Anyway it was a hung jury.
I’ve been a registered voter for 30 years and never once was called to jury duty. Just weird luck, I guess.
I wonder what was up with the detective? It sounded like a grudge-match to me. Did the defendant have a long list of priors? (Or is that info even admissible?)
Well, the wasted week is over. Enjoy those well-earned beverages. And thanks for filling us in as soon as you could. I was dying to know!
It sounded like a grudge-match to me.
There was definitely history between the detective and the defendant, but we weren’t allowed to know details.
I’ve been in the jury pool once. It was interesting. The selection took a week (Civil trial). After hardship releases we numbered about 80 (I could look it up). When the last alternate was seated, there were six people who’d not been called.
I was disappointed. I wanted to be on the jury. As I was leaving one of the att’ys told me I’d dodged a bullet, seems the clerk of the court misread the line, and my name was skipped over.
It was interesting watching the various things people did to try and get kicked off, as well as the questioning.
My favorite (released before selection started) was the woman who was getting married in a month (the trial was expected to last three weeks, at least). The judge said, “It’s not really a hardship, but I suspect you will be to distracted to properly serve.”
The favorite denial was the patent att’t who tried to claim he’d miss giving a paper at a conference in London.
“Excuse me, but is there some hardship here I’m not seeing?”
I may have been the only one, save the lawyer’s who saw how solidly the guy had been slapped.
TK
TK
Maha, does the hung jury business mean that the defendant has to go through another trial? If so, that seems to unfairly give that rogue juror too much of a power wedge.
“I’m going to get tipsy now. Regular blogging starts tomorrow”
Maha,
Too god dam bad you and your friends couldn’t get that dude off. Our legal system sucks. When just one man’s opinion can hold back the verdict of the hoard? Who heard of such a thing? Wait that’s what makes us a democracy. I enjoyed this post more than most. I noticed it was well written by you. Not some liberally edited montage of the “important” news items of the day. Maybe we could here your take on things a little more often.
Ouch; it’s a nightmare of mine to be on a jury with such a person.
I’ve been on a jury six times, and been foreperson twice. The trials I’ve been on were split between civil (2) and criminal (4). In the latter case, each time we had a “why would the police arrest someone if he wasn’t guilty?” juror or two. But they’ve always listened to reason just as long as everyone was getting their chance to talk. (In one case, we did return several guilty verdicts while acquitting on other charges; in another the defendent was clearly guilty; in the rest the jury acquitted.) I’m glad I never had to deal with someone like your juror who simply wouldn’t listen. But it’s easy to see how it might happen.
The worst time I had as a juror was when the foreperson went around the room and had us vote publicly before we’ve even gone through the evidence. That probably added at least half a day to deliberations as people overcame their defensive postures. Based on that experience, when I was foreperson I insisted that we keep our opinions to ourselves until we had gone through the evidence and instructions. That didn’t always keep people from announcing their personal verdict from the start, but they generally did so in a way that left it easier for them to back-pedal as necessary.
Politics. It’s everywhere.
joanr16 — Do you drive, do you have a driver’s license? The reason I ask is because I was a very regular voter for over 20 years and was never called for jury duty… until I got a non-driver ID and was in the motor vehicle records. (I live in Queens, NYC.) The jury board would swear that they take names from voter rolls and motor vehicle, but I think it’s the driver rolls that are used more often. Re: jobs that get you off a jury panel: I was once declined for a civil case involving a supermarket slip-n-fall damages suit. When asked what I did for a living I told them I was a paralegal working in Public Utilities law, but I also had worked as a copy editor for Matthew Bender (legal publisher) in the trial and evidence division. Being a paralegal was no problem but my experience at Bender meant I knew “more than the average person” about rules of evidence and the judge had the priviledge of letting me off the panel.
I understand your frustration. I was on a jury with the opposite issue – 11 guilty 1 not guilty. The evidence left no doubt, not just no reasonable doubt that the guy was guilty of armed robbery. He was caught within 3 hours of the robbery with the wallet, car and credit cards of the victim. But one jury refused to be moved. Only after 7 hours, when she realized she was going to be late for work did she change her mind. Then she said she still didn’t believe he was guilt, she just had to get to work. I almost changed mine to not guilt just to make her understand the gravity of the jury system. But since he was guilty, I didn’t. Changed my whole view of “trial by a jury of your peers.” This woman was not one of my peers.
I was on a jury once, a murder trial in Brooklyn, NY. The judge explained the process very clearly, especially the concept of “reasonable doubt.” The defendant’s lawyer was a bit of a screwball, tempermentally.
The jury was mainly women, and I was the only white person. While we took three days to decide, it was basically amicable…although it took a while for one person to come around to the group judgment. We found the defendent not guilty because of reasonable doubt.
Hey, the judge even sent us thank-you notes a few weeks after the trial.
This is democracy, yes.
Not some liberally edited montage of the “important†news items of the day. Maybe we could here your take on things a little more often.
I blog what I blog. You don’t have to read it.
The judge explained the process very clearly, especially the concept of “reasonable doubt.â€
So did our judge. Hell, so did the rest of the jury. We spent two solid days trying to explain “reasonable doubt” and “burden of proof” to this meathead. Close to the end of the day yesterday he was still complaining that the defense hadn’t proved the defendant wasn’t guilty.
Maha, does the hung jury business mean that the defendant has to go through another trial? If so, that seems to unfairly give that rogue juror too much of a power wedge.
Well, yes, and several of us suspected the guy was grandstanding just because he enjoyed the power wedge. I wish we could have replaced him with an alternate on the grounds he was refusing to deliberate and was mentally incapacitated. Yesterday, in fact, he offered to resign voluntarily from the jury so that he could be replaced by an alternate. Unfortunately the judge had dismissed the alternates on the first day of deliberations.
The hung jury means the defendant is still charged with a crime. It’s always possible the DA will just drop the charges and not put the county through the expense of another trial, however.
I was on a civil trial. The plaintiff had an excellent case (age discrimination); the defendants were lying worms (something the jury agreed on). The plaintiff had an eager, excitable, egghead lawyer. The plaintiffs found an 85 yr old amiable actor who had clearly studied jury distraction / bamboozlement techniques for years. The jury had a number of well educated members and many retirees. The judge slept (literally). Plaintiff lost, 11-1. Even a moderate actor beats a good lawyer. No one on the jury wished to realize that they had been bamboozled.
Off-topic: per you predictions about Bush changing course (NOT):
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011590.php
I was on a similar jury, with three cops, all with different stories, trying to convict a (as usual) African American for marijuana sale. It wasn’t the lack of physical evidence, it was the inconsistency.
Gordon, I never predicted Bush would change course. I have said many times he will not. What I predicted was that Congress will likely (sooner or later, sometime in 2007) come to a bipartisan agreement that the course must be changed, and may even agree how the course must be changed. The question is whether Congress has the constitutional authority to force the course to be changed. I think it does, but others disagree.
Yes, Barbara, that’s what the (NOT) was for. Hmm, that’s at least twice my (perhaps) lame attempts at humor here have backfired.
Gordon — sorry. I am one big raw nerve right now. It’ll be a few days before I recover, I’m afraid.
About 20%-30% of the population think that being arrested means a person is guilty and see the jury system as a chance for lawyers to earn money and for guilty people to get off. If, later, the convicted person is exonerated, the reaction is that either he “gamed” the system, found an activist liberal judge, or else had done other crimes which he had not been convicted of, so it was still OK that he spend years in prison.
About the same number of people believe that Elvis is alive, that extraterrrestials visit us on a regular basis and GWB’s Iraq policy is correct because Saddam had WMDs and helped to finance/train the 9/11 terrorists.
At one time, voting rolls were used so you knew the voters at least cared enough about the system to register to vote and then driver’s license lists were used so you could figure the jurors could at least pass the driving and written exam at DMV. Most recently, DMV has been issuing personal IDs which are not licenses which means you don’t have to pass any sort of test to end up on a jury or have any interest in the system. All you need is the world view that $12 per day is a great way to earn money and you are all set for jury duty. (since that was the argument of one guy who had hung a jury on a pissant charge. “Hey, don’t go so fast; we are getting $12 a day for sitting on our asses and doing nothing”)
Maha, I think it’s great that where you are they allow educated people to sit on juries. My point was that most defendants here have very little education or are generally considered to be uneducated “common” folk and therefore educated people would judge them too harshly (i.e., according to the written law).
My point was that most defendants here have very little education or are generally considered to be uneducated “common†folk and therefore educated people would judge them too harshly (i.e., according to the written law).
I doubt sociological studies or empirical evidence bear out that assumption.
I got called in for Duty in Brooklyn once. There they can’t go heavliy by DMV since so many NYC residents do not have cars. (my friend turned 30 before he learned to drive)
It was a civil case, the family of a dead worker was suing the MTA for wrongful death.
I tried everything I could thing of during Voir Dire.
-First I told them I knew a lot about scaffolding and workplace safety, and would be able to tell if the worker was ordered to do something dangerous without proper protection.
-When asked if I had a gruge against the city government, I said mayor Giuliani ran a fascist police state over the citizens, but I didn’t have a problem with the beauracracy.
-When they asked about my backgroound I told them I was a Realistic Socialist, explaining that I am realistic in that Socialism is under attack, but I am not the old-school rock throwing Wobbly.
None of that phased any of them. Finally one of the defendent’s lawyers was asking another juror if the ever got money from the city and I sheepishly raised my hand.
It seemed that my summer job as Master Electrician in an outdoor music venue happened to be funded by the Parks department. Even though I never saw or even knew any city employee, my checks said New York City, Department of Parks.
All the lawyers threw up their hands in disgust at all the time they wasted. After I was sent back to the main holding room, I coincidentally happened to be right on the other side of a partition when the lawyers called the judge to hash out their objection to certain jurors. (In NYC the lawyers Voir Dire without a judge, then call one to solve their objections).
When they got to me, neither side wanted to cut me! But the judge was adamant, I received checks that were cut by the city.
Never heard what happened to that poor family.
Pingback: The Mahablog » Idiocy Abounds
I was on a jury in 1998. The guy was charged with two murders and the trial lasted all summer. It was one of the most interesting experiences I ever had. It was just luck, but all we jurors (14 of us, including alternates) got to be good pals. Some of us still have lunch together once in a while. I realize that most jury expereinces don’t turn out this way, but sometimes they do.
Maha-
Are you sure that you were a fair and impartial juror? You begin your post by belittling the importance of the case as “it was a bleeping marijuana possession case.” The prosecutor, if she was doing her job, surely asked you during voir dire whether you felt a marijuana possession case was a worthwhile use of public resources, and whether you could still fairly decide based on nothing but the evidence and the law. I wonder – did that come up? If so, what did you say?
It sounds like the People had a lousy case, but the mere fact that the marijuana was found near, not in, defendant’s home isn’t a problem for me. My car is near my home, not in it, but I still possess it.
And the fact that it was a one-witness case doesn’t bother me – if I get robbed when I’m alone, you bet I’m going to expect the jury to believe me, with or without corroboration.
If the detective was caught in inconsistencies, that sounds like he wasn’t credible. But I wonder, were these inconsistencies of real consequence? Because I’ve heard defense attorneys make mountains out of molehills, and seen jurors who were predisposed to acquit use those silly discrpencies to rationalize their outcome.
Don’t get me wrong, it sounds like the People’s case sucked – the great ones almost never go to trial, they plead out – but it sounds to me like you went into it somewhat predisposed to acquit because it was “just a marijuana possession.”
The State can’t insist on a panel of 12 jurors who all agree that marijuana possession is a deadly serious matter. It is what it is.
When I had jury duty in NYC a couple years back, it was amazing how juror after juror said they had a problem with New York’s draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. Many of them said they could never vote to convict, knowing that the sentences are out of control. And yet these laws remain on the books.
There’s a democracy failure in there somewhere.
Sharps: “Are you sure that you were a fair and impartial juror?”
Yes, I was. And you completely misread the post. Points:
It was not a one-witness case. Actually, we heard several witnesses over several days. However, the crux of the matter — that the defendant was in possession (as defined by law) of marijuana found outside his apartment depended entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of one detective. The rest of the prosecution’s witnesses amounted to padding.
The defendant had only one witness (his girlfriend) and did not take the stand himself. I don’t believe the girlfriend’s testimony made any difference to any of us.
It sounds like the People had a lousy case, but the mere fact that the marijuana was found near, not in, defendant’s home isn’t a problem for me. My car is near my home, not in it, but I still possess it.
Yes, but there’s a legal document called a “title” that is solid proof you own your car. The marijuana didn’t have a name on it, and it was found in a closet in an area that many people beside the defendant had access to. In order to convict, we would have had to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the closet was under the control of the defendant, and only the defendant, and the prosecution fell short of proving that.
Please note that had the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the marijuana did belong to the defendant, I would have had no problem voting to convict.
But I wonder, were these inconsistencies of real consequence?
Yes, they were massive, and related directly to the question of whether the defendant had sole control over the closet in which the drugs were found.
if I get robbed when I’m alone, you bet I’m going to expect the jury to believe me, with or without corroboration.
It was explained to us jurors that in a criminal case, the law says the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to prove he is not guilty; the prosecution has to prove he is guilty. If the case boils down to the prosecution’s word against the defendant’s word, then the law requires a “not guilty” verdict.
it sounds to me like you went into it somewhat predisposed to acquit because it was “just a marijuana possession.â€
You would be wrong. I was only aggravated that a marijuana possession case took so much time.
By the way, you can apologize to me for being an ass whenever you’re ready.
It always gets me – how do innocent people get convicted?
As we have seen with the exoneration of death row inmates since the advent of genetic identification techniques, people do go to jail unjustly. Death row inmates are people whose lives are in the balance – the stakes are high, and the media pays attention. But what about people charged with lesser crimes that can’t be saved by DNA evidence? I’m willing to bet thet the percentage of the unjustly convicted increases proportionally with the number of people charged with various offenses.
The question is: How does this happen?
At what point does someone in the system (cop, prosecutor, judge), decide to ignore a lack of evidence (the fact is, if a person didn’t do something, then there couldn’t possibly be evidence that they did), and decide to proceed anyway? I understand that there are gray areas, but in the case of someone being undeniably innocent of doing a crime, there is no gray area: Someone used their power maliciously.
Everyone else seems to be worried about the Supreme Court. I’m worried about the General Disrtrict Court. I have seen judges asleep during a trial with no jury.
We need to open this branch of our Government up to scrutiny. Cameras in every courtroom, certified video copies of proceedings to all parties at the expense of the court and as a matter of right, and felony criminal penalties for malicious prosecution. Most importantly, membership in the Bar Association should not be a requirement to practice law, as it makes a very unsavory marriage of political, governmental, and private organizational interests.. A JD should be qualification enough.
BTW, I’ve never been charged with or convicted of a crime. I’ve never served on a jury. I have watched a few trials and have diligently studied the Code, Rules of the Court, and Rules of Procedure for my state, since they became available on line.
Steve- the State insists on no such thing. Those 12 jurors could not have been chosen unless they each promised the judge, the ADA, the defendant and his attorney that they would set aside their personal feelings about the marijuana laws and judge the case solely on the evidence and apply the law as the judge instructed, even if they disagreed with the law.
This is about the rule of law, which we liberals are getting very righteous about these days. Believe me, if (when?) George W. Bush is tried for violation of FISA and related laws, you are going to hope for jurors that will be honest about their views of the law during voir dire, and who then keep their promise to set aside those feelings and judge the case on the facts and apply the law as instructed.
The “Rockefeller Drug Laws” have been mitigated recently by the state legislature. Is it a “democracy failure” that they haven’t been more drastically liberalized? Perhaps. But just because your small sample from NYC, the most liberal jurisdiction in all of New York state, disagreed with them does not mean citizens statewide reject them. I know a lot of liberals who feel drugs (even pot) are really, really bad.
Let’s be consistent.
By the way, you can apologize to me for being an ass whenever you’re ready.
And that apology will never be offered. My comments were to the point but at no time disrespectful, in sharp contrast to your juvenile name-calling.
I’m done here.
My comments were to the point but at no time disrespectful,
They were not at all to the point and they pre-judged me, which is something I do not appreciated. And yes, you’re done here.
Barbara-
I don’t think Sharps misread you post. For one, you only mentioned one witness.
Yes, but there’s a legal document called a “title†that is solid proof you own your car.
But the law doesn’t require that. It only requires that a person have control over an object to find possession.
Yes, they were massive, and related directly to the question of whether the defendant had sole control over the closet in which the drugs were found.
Again, the law doesn’t require “sole” control, just control.
If the case boils down to the prosecution’s word against the defendant’s word, then the law requires a “not guilty†verdict.
Actually, that’s not true at all. Only if you find the prosecution witness not credible, which apparently you did.
I was only aggravated that a marijuana possession case took so much time.
Well….that still sounds like you don’t take marijuana laws seriously.
The “Rockefeller Drug Laws†have been mitigated recently by the state legislature. Is it a “democracy failure†that they haven’t been more drastically liberalized?
Please note that my problem with the trial was not about whether drug laws are good or bad. I feel strongly that my place as a juror was not to judge the law but the evidence that the law was broken. If it were up to me marijuana laws would be decriminalized, but I value the rule of law above my own opinion.
My frustration with the prosecution’s case and the jury “deliberation” would have been exactly the same had the contraband been crystal meth or heroin or even weapons of mass destruction.
For that reason, if the comments thread devolves into a debate on marijuana laws, I’m going to cut off comments. That is not what I was venting about.
It only requires that a person have control over an object to find possession.
Yes, and the prosecution didn’t prove that.
Again, the law doesn’t require “sole†control, just control.
If the drugs could just as easily have belonged to another tenant in the building as to the defendant, I’d say that shoots down a “possession” charge, wouldn’t you?
ME: If the case boils down to the prosecution’s word against the defendant’s word, then the law requires a “not guilty†verdict.
TANIA: Actually, that’s not true at all. Only if you find the prosecution witness not credible, which apparently you did.
The judge’s instructions clearly said that the defendant [in a criminal case] had no burden of proof to prove he was innocent; the burden of proof belongs to the prosecution entirely. If a case boils down to the prosecution saying “ABC” and the defendant says “No, XYZ,” and there is no corroborating evidence of ABC (or XYZ, for that matter), then the defendant is presumed innocent. That’s the law in Westchester County, New York, anyway.
Well….that still sounds like you don’t take marijuana laws seriously.
I hope to god a judgmental twit like yourself is never on a jury.
Sounds like a case I covered about a decade ago — civil trial between Food Lion and ABC News over some undercover reporting. The jury split between 11 people who said ABC News was liable for basically nothing and 1 who wanted to sock it to “the media” for millions. So the jury, in violation of their respective oaths, “compromised” on something like $600,000 or $2 million, which the 4th Circuit later reduced to zero.
I get called for jury duty every odd-numbered year like clockwork. Last couple of times out, I skated, which just makes up for the time before that, when I got stuck on a civil jury for four whole days before the parties settled. Talk about 12 angry men: We wanted to throw both parties in jail for life, and that was before the settlement was announced. We just thought they and their respective counsel were all jerks. 🙂
Samfdy:
innocent people get convicted for some of the following reasons:
– mistaken identity (where the defendant lacks an exonerating alabi)
– corrupted or fradulent evidence (whether inentionally or negligently corrupted)
– and sometimes defendants are convicted for THIS crome because, in teh past, they have been convicted for ThAT crime. While there is a general bar against using as evidence in a trial past criminal convictions of defendant, it is not absolute. A slick prosecutor can get that evidence in front of a jury sometimes.
– incompetent public defenders. especially in those jurisdictions where the public defenders are lawyers performing pro bono.
I was on 3 different federal juries within a 6 month period while stationed at Ft Bliss Tx-El Paso-in the middle 1970’s, and was shocked at the minor nature of the cases. All were 1 day cases. 1 was where the cops tried to prove that a man was a drug dealer, they had lots of scientific evidence, but could not prove-they admitted as much-custody of either the marked money, or the drugs to the defendent. 1 was simple assult and battery, when a cop was pushed-not hit, beaten up or anything, just shoved. The last was the best. An illegal had tried to pull a gun on a very fat age 64 border patrolman, he thought that he could threaten the borderpatrol with the gun and get away. Unfortunately for him, the fat old cop, was the world record holder in quick draw and shoot, he could, and did in fact demonstrate in court, that he could draw his weapon in less than 1 second, the defence had tried to say that nobody could have drawn a gun that quickly(if the defendent already had his gun pointed at the cop) but he pretty much had the entire court laughing after that demonstration.
My point, a large number of trials should never be brought, they are a total waste of time(like the trial that the blogger sat thru) is it because of the need for a large number of convictions? or is it just some dumb prosecutors? I have gone down to our local courthouse and watched some trials, both local and federal, and can’t see where much has changed since the 70’s. Still a lot of wasted time, and money on trials that should never have been brought. Don’t prosecutors listen to what their own witnesses are saying? Haven’t they ever heard the saying, never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer. Over the years I have seen way to many incompetent lawyers, on both sides.
…a large number of trials should never be brought, they are a total waste of time(like the trial that the blogger sat thru) is it because of the need for a large number of convictions? or is it just some dumb prosecutors?
That’s what I wondered. There must have been something about that case that we jurors were not permitted to know. Whether that “something” would have helped the prosecutor’s case I can’t say, of course.
I have been on a drug case jury. I have been on a case with a lying cop. I’ve been on other juries with people telling two different sides of the same story, and clearly neither was intentionally lying. For the record, I think cops lie about drug cases a lot. The drug laws are stupid, harmful, and useless. If I am ever on a drug jury again, it will take an awful lot to convince me to convict, even if the person is probably guilty. Reasonable doubt rules, and I think juries can help settle the question about what should be legal or not. That’s the reality of it all.
RadioCity — the lead detective in “my” case was caught lying on the witness stand. For example, at one point the defense lawyer showed him some handwritten notes, which the detective looked at carefully. The lawyer asked if he recognized the handwriting and signature on the notes. The detective said no. Then the detective asked, aren’t those your notes? Well, yes, they were the detective’s notes, but he didn’t recognize them. Turns out they were notes on three prior arrests of the defendant by that same detective, none of which resulted in conviction.
The detective was also caught in a lie about what he had placed in an evidence bag and whether a tool chest in which drugs were found had been locked with a padlock that belonged to the defendant. Turned out the tool chest — which had been confiscated by the cops as evidence –was missing a vital part (the lid) and could not have been locked.
What I think possibly happened is that the detective found drugs in a storage area in the house (but not in the defendant’s apartment, which was the only part of the house covered by the search warrant) and fabricated a story about keys and padlocks to (a) cover his own ass, and (b) tie the drugs to the defendant. But unless we knew for certain that the drugs had been secured by lock and key owned by the defendant, there literally were several dozen other people who might have placed the drugs in the storage area where they were found.
It’s amazing to me the District Attorney even bothered. It’s possible the defendant really is a bad guy and they were trying to get him on something, but this case was stupid.
A close friend of mine was on a hung jury. She has been called back since, but she was dismissed during the selection process. She feels it was because they asked about prior jury experience. Neither side wants someone who was in a hung jury for fear that he or she was the problem. For better or worse, you’re probably free from jury duty for life.