I’m listening to Ocean Beach by Red House Painters. I haven’t heard this album in years… God it’s good.
The verdict was “not guilty” in the misdemeanor battery trial I served on today and last week. For most of deliberations, we stood at 11-1 in favor of acquittal, and had to kind of gently persuade one dissenter… or rather get him to understand that in a case like this, and in all cases, one approaches it without emotion or feeling, but rather by just looking at the facts presented, the case presented, and whether it proves that the evidence is true. Most of us felt that the guilt of the defendant was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was entirely based on unclear witness testimony. The victim of the alleged battery (an elbowing to the arm in line at the DMV) not only did not appear in court, she didn’t even press charges. The case was filed by the DA based on perhaps the fact that the altercation took place at the DMV and the defendant was drunk and black. For some reason, they dropped the drunk in public charge, the only one they perhaps could have proven.
The prosecution could have proven this case to us. We could all see how she could have done it, if it really did happen. She didn’t do her job. I learned the meaning of “burden of proof.” Perhaps get some real eyewitnesses to testify; customers out on the floor where the defendant was. Get the “victim” to corroborate the charge. Go down to the DMV and take some photos, take some measurements of the service counter so that it is absolutely clear to the jury whether the witnesses could have even seen what they said they sort of maybe saw. It would have been so simple. But we know the City is broke, and this attorney probably didn’t have the time and money to put together an air-tight case. Or maybe she just didn’t have one.
Anyway I learned a lot about the legal process and secretly loved being on the jury. It’s less glamorous than it ever looks on TV, but glamorous in a different way… you are dealing with real people and situations. You are put into a room with eleven others and expected to work together in a civil and logical way to reach a fair verdict based only on facts. I think my jury did an excellent job. It’s too bad we can’t have professional juries in this country, made up of a balance of people who are all smart, reasonable, and fair.
I once thought that juries were made up of people who weren’t clever enough to get out of jury duty. I was so wrong. Juries are made up of people who not only have the time and capability to serve, but are too honest to weasel out of it like so many did during the selection process. We heard some great stories, like the girl who first said she was starting school (at CITY COLLEGE!) Monday, then when the judge asked what classes she had Monday, she replied, well, actually my first class isn’t until Tuesday… Hey guess what, tomorrow’s Tuesday, and the trial is over. She was excused anyway later by the prosecution–they did tend to get rid of anyone who posed the slightest argument of inconvenience or bias; after all, there were plenty more to pick from, and that included me.
I recommend it to anyone who is qualified and who can afford to make the time for it.
Hmmm. I’m surprised the prosecution even brought charges with such a weak case. Was the plaintiff ‘connected’ in some way, do you think?
It’s too bad we can’t have professional juries in this country, made up of a balance of people who are all smart, reasonable, and fair.
Well, the problem is, as always, defining ‘smart, reasonable and fair’, and finding people that everyone agrees meet those definitions. That said, I’d actually prefer to see a European-style justice system, where the judge is an active participant in the discovery process. This has flaws (an ideologically driven judge can unbalance the whole trial), but its tremendous advantage is that it removes the unfamiliarity of juries with the law from the process. This prevents some of the more heinous abuses performed by both prosecutors and defenders against juries who don’t know any better or are easily manipulated.
I once thought that juries were made up of people who weren’t clever enough to get out of jury duty. I was so wrong. Juries are made up of people who not only have the time and capability to serve, but are too honest to weasel out of it like so many
Sigh. Some are like this. Some are decidedly not. Most, I would guess, are in the middle. I’ve served on a jury of honest, intelligent people, and of complete morons. A lot of it has to do with how skillful the attorneys are during the voir dire; oddly, you’re much more likely to get a smart, conscientious jury for a minor, unimportant trial than you are for a big, high-profile case. In the latter, the stakes are so high for both attorneys that they’re likely to be absolutely ruthless in the voir dire, resulting in a particularly gross jury getting empaneled.
One final rant: I think that, since jury service is supposed to be a mandatory duty for every US citizen, it should be mandatory for employers to pay their employees for jury service days. A huge, huge number of people squirm out of service not because they don’t want to, or because they’re lazy, but because they simply can’t afford it; in an important trial, you could be looking at 3-4 weeks without pay. I myself was once selected as a juror for a pretty major murder case in AZ — one that had nabbed lots of headlines — and even though I really wanted to serve, I had to back out because I couldn’t afford a minimum of 2 weeks without an income. I think it’s terrible that most employers don’t pay for jury service.
Anyway, thanks for the details! I’m glad you got to do it, and it sounds like you had fun. And yay, not guilty!
Was the plaintiff ‘connected’ in some way, do you think?
There was no plaintiff. It was “the people vs.” The alleged victim was a 91 year old woman who never even stated to the police that she had been shoved by the guy. She wanted no part of it. She also didn’t speak English.
oddly, you’re much more likely to get a smart, conscientious jury for a minor, unimportant trial than you are for a big, high-profile case.
This makes sense. Our case was pretty small-time, and admittedly, my first time serving. So I guess I can’t generalize too much. But my perception of juries being made up of old people and the unemployed was wrong. The attorneys excused the two old women from the panel in the selection process, for reasons we found out later. My jury was made up entirely of working people aged maybe late-20s to late-40s. One black woman who was the foreperson, she was great. Two Latinos. Everyone else white. About 50-50 men to women.
I think that, since jury service is supposed to be a mandatory duty for every US citizen, it should be mandatory for employers to pay their employees for jury service days.
Totally. It’s appalling that they don’t. Juries would have much more variety and balance if the working poor could actually serve on them.
hey!
wow, sounds amazing! so glad i just read that the suspense was honestly getting to me!! thanks for seeking me out to show me the leeds stuff! i can’t believe you lived on brudenell rd! i can’t believe i’m awake at 7.53 am! hope to see you soon!
wow
hey jane,
when i responded before i had only seen the pictures. i have read some of the story and it was really gripping. you are a really good writer, and it’s a really honest and real read. thanks for sending it to me. we went to sadie’s tonight and wanted you to come too but jon said it was too late to ring you by the time we actually decided anything. oh yeh, i met that internet guy i was telling you about and he’s really nice! ok, see you soon, rg.
Re: wow
Aw thank you 🙂 Last night Brian and I went to the movies and didn’t get back to my place until almost 10, but thanks for thinkin of me! Maybe we can all do something this weekend, and I hear there is a bonfire going on tomorrow night?