Thanks goes out to my friend Jeff, as he gets full credit for teaching me patience. This was the one task he undertook when he and I became friends back in 1984. It was a long, grueling process, but the results are undeniable. Because without this patience, I would now be writing to you from behind the bars of a prison cell while wearing an orange jumpsuit which would do nothing for my figure, much less to enhance my ivory complexion. The charge would be at a minimum assault, with a very real possibility of murder in the 2nd degree.
Last week I was on jury duty, and had the honor of deliberating a robbery trial. I had never been summoned before this, and this responsibility was met with a fair amount of evil glares by my employer (almost worthy of its own blog entry). On trial was a young man in his early twenties and I was juror number 9. Here are the facts as presented:
- One night in 2004, a man (the victim) arranged to meet a woman in a parking lot around 10:30 at night. While sitting in her car (a 4-door Honda Accord), two guys jumped into the back seat on each side, each wrapping a forearm around the neck of the two in front and placing a gun against the temple of the victim (it is unclear if one was placed to the head of the female). Warned that if he turned around he would be blown away, the victim was instructed to hand his wallet and keys over his shoulder behind him. He was then very explicitly told how to get out of the car (so as not to see the robbers) and was told the woman would drive the robbers around the corner where they would then let her go.
- As soon as the car drove off, the victim ran next door, found a pay phone and called 911. During the call, the victim mentions his keys were stolen and that the robbers now have his address (from his driver's license) along with his house keys. He also mentions his Wells Fargo business VISA/ATM card was in his wallet. A police dispatch is sent out in search of the vehicle.
- 6 to 10 minutes later, a Sheriff's deputy spots the vehicle (the car only had one working headlight and had some front end damage so it was easy to spot), makes a u-turn and starts to tail it. The deputy notices a female driver and 2 males in the car, one being the defendant. The car heads directly to the nearest Wells Fargo bank, where the deputy (still observing) sees the female driver and the defendant get out and proceed arm in arm up to an ATM. Under testimony, the deputy says the two appeared "together" and no one was being forced. The two spend a couple of minutes at the ATM (the deputy was blocked from seeing their direct activity) then get back in the car. A few minutes later, the car is pulled over and the the suspects detained at gunpoint. The occupants of the car (including the defendant) did not change from the time the deputy spotted the car.
- The arresting officer on scene testified to finding the victim's wallet and keys in the car. The victim's driver's license and ATM card were missing. The officer further stated he looked for ANY ATM card (to justify why the suspects were at the bank), and found none. Furthermore, no gun was found.
- The victim was unable to identify the defendant as the perpetrator, as he was very specifically prevented from turning around.
So, even though the victim was unable to see who attacked him, within 6-10 minutes of the 911 call, the defendant was spotted in the car by the Sheriff deputy; the female (obviously in on the whole thing) drove not to just any ATM, but to one at a bank specifically used by the victim (remember, NO cards were found on any of the suspects); the defendant was observed walking arm in arm with the female to the ATM; and the victim's wallet and keys were found in the car - all this pointed to guilty as hell.
The entire defense consisted of the attorney challenging the victim was a convicted drug dealer. This point was objected to and sustained by the judge as being irrelevant. So really, there was no defense.
It should be mentioned that both attorneys absolutely sucked and I would not want either of them to help me talk my way out of a jaywalking ticket.
The case is completely presented and handed to the jury by 3pm on the first day (including a whopping 3-hour lunch break). At this point, I am feeling good.
Chapter 2 - deliberation
The visions dancing thru the recesses of my imagination were worthy of a Tarentino film. Disemboweled, skinned corpses hanging by the neck from the upper story of the parking garage. OK, not quite that bad, but still my thoughts were running toward the violent. It was day 2 of deliberation. Tallying at 10 to 2 guilty, there were two holdouts. It is important to note I wasn't there to throw the book at the defendant, but there was nothing presented to me to give me any doubt as to his guilt. But there she was, number 2, doing everything we as the jury were instructed NOT to do. It was very clearly stated the whole case rested on the evidence presented - no suppositions, no theories, no "what-ifs". Incessantly she argued the defendant was never seen in the car, and he could possibly have gotten in the car afterward and not known anything about the robbery. But here are the problems with that:
- He was "together" with the girl walking arm-in-arm up to an ATM machine of a bank they don't have ATM cards for.
- He was spotted in the car less than 10 minutes after the robbery occurred at "gunpoint", and the fact the girl was in on the robbery is incontrovertible.
- The car and its occupants proceed DIRECTLY to the bank with no detours.
Using basic common sense, how likely is it the girl and the other suspect (a juvenile male) would have picked up the defendant at a pre-arranged time within a couple minutes of the robbery, showed NO signs of adrenaline from the committing the crime, and said not one word as to why they were going to a bank they didn't have cards for at 10:30 at night?
Now there are some issues regarding the case which are sort of compelling:
The victim (a married man) stated he had met the girl at a bar a few nights prior. The bar caught on fire and burned down the next day. He said he arranged over the phone to meet her at the parking lot across a street to check out the burned building. Say wha'? Is this really a pickup line I know nothing about? And exactly how much "checking out" can you do at 10pm during winter? Obviously, something else was going on here. (This information was given during testimony, but is irrelevant to the crime).
The two met in separate cars, then drove separately to a nearby mini-mart for beer and cigarettes, then to a roach coach for some food before parking. This is important to me as I maintain the defendant was in the car from the start of the robbery. What is the likelihood of the girl arranging to pick up the defendant within minutes of committing a robbery where the timetable was so volatile (the driving to several locations before stopping in the parking lot, then the robbery - could she really be able to plan a date that precisely)?
So juror number 2 keeps arguing towards reasonable doubt, but her explanations and statements just manage to further convince the other 10 of the defendant's guilt, and fortunately (for her health and my sanity), she finally convinces herself. That leaves the last holdout...
I don't even know what juror number she was (maybe 6). All I know is she had no business being on a jury. I honestly believe she was being contrary just for the sake of being so. When asked why she believed not guilty, her response was something like this: "Well I don't know, I guess no one saw him in the car, so I guess, I don't know, he might not have been there, so I guess not guilty..." Even when the vote reached 11 to 1, she never presented a statement with an ounce of conviction, finally conceding with a "I guess he's guilty". Even then the remaining jurors had to get her to drop the "I guess" before we could announce a verdict.
So what have I learned? I think I found the process very interesting, and would not have problems serving again if asked. My only concern is having to deal with idiots. I enjoy a good logical debate, but I honestly believe had the inane arguments (from the holdouts) gone on much longer I would've either hurt someone else or myself. The TWO (forever linked as such in my mind) even started the murmurings of a hung jury (to which I explained the judge would have had us debate for a VERY long time before conceding to that). I could almost feel IQ points leaking out of my head.
The first expression my father ever taught me was "Patience is the essential virtue." I was 3 and obviously had no concept of what it meant, but my Dad's funny that way. He can be proud that I finally understand.
