Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

OR

My adventures and disappointment during a week of jury duty.

This isn't quite about how much of a pain jury duty is. For me it wasn't bad. I didn't spend long in the jury pool, I was picked for selection and then to serve on the first jury of the week, and when that first one was finished I was immediately chosen for another. The week went quickly. Didn't have to be in until 9ish, one hour lunch I could spend at the market, beats spending 8 hours straight on my feet running up and down my press.

I was really only bothered on my last day, today. My first trial was Indecent Contact with a Minor. 48 year old man, 12 year old female. The whole thing boiled down to he said/she said, and the girl's testimony deviated from her earlier statements. We found that the Commonwealth did not prove it's case, so the verdict was not guilty. I wasn't particularly happy with the outcome, despite being one of the ones arguing for a not guilty verdict. Something didn't quite seem right, but we simply didn't feel the evidence supported a guilty verdict. More on this later.

The second case was a stabbing. Two young men in an argument over the cost of a laptop, they continued to jaw at one another until the larger one grabbed the smaller in a bear-hug. The smaller one stabbed the larger in the side, doing some serious damage. The smaller claimed self-defense, and again the a.d.a. did not prove otherwise, so we found him not guilty by justification (the legal term for PA's self-defense). We did find him guilty of tampering with evidence, he threw the knife as he ran home. The witnesses (and the victim, and the defendant) seemed to be the kind of inner-city trash that Eturnal and Jubber see in all non-whites (not really). Their ability to clearly indicate what they meant when they were on the stand left A LOT to be desired, and if it weren't for the photos of the crime scene they would have confused the case more than clearing up what happened. Not to say that this wasn't important, but I didn't really feel as much of an investment in this case.

After my second case it was late Thursday and I returned to the jury pool room. They let us go and blah blah. They asked that the a.d.a. from my first case wanted to talk to any willing jurors from that case after we were released. She was new and wanted our input on how she did, any changes she could make, that kind of stuff. Now, the night before (after the case) I had looked up the defendant online. I was expecting to see a newspaper article about his arrest. Instead what I found was a superior court ruling that his decade old nolo contendere plea on similar charges involving his daughter were inadmissible in the case I heard. While I can partially understand the ruling, I disagree. Certainly a previous crime isn't evidence they committed the current crime, but I really felt cheated. I was much, much more disappointed when, during our time talking with the a.d.a. today, I learned there was quite a number of things that weren't brought up at trial for one reason or another. The main reason I couldn't find him guilty was the massive holes that could have been filled and led me to see the whole picture instead of a seemingly disjointed series of events that felt awkward, unnatural, and untrue. Hearing the whole story, even without the prior no contest, I would have had no qualms finding him guilty. I understand that it was in no way my fault for finding him not guilty. The Commonwealth's case simply did not meet the standards to find him guilty. It still really bothers me to have a part in setting him free.

I was further disappointed to learn that, even with a guilty verdict he would have likely only served 3 months and not had to register as a sex offender, despite it being his second conviction for inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. Fuck the system.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Edit: On a more serious note - that is fucked up. My above post is referencing the problems with "inadmissible evidence." For example, one reason OJ got off was because the entire White Bronco police chase was deemed inadmissible. The jurors had no idea this so called "innocent" man tried to flee/threatened to kill himself.

The system works sometimes - and I do like the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." With that said, our clunky legal system has way too many holes, and unscrupulous lawyers do everything they can to exploit them. I know you're mad, but from the sounds of it, you made decisions on both cases based on your best understanding of the facts and evidence at hand. As a juror, that's all you can do.

http://open.salon.com/blog/elizabethmcdonald_designatedknitter/2008/10/04/13_years_lateoj_convicted_aint_karma_a_bitch

they can't dodge bullets forever.

doublederppost

You have fat finger to the max with all of your double posts.

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

nah, just an itchy trigger finger.

Prior history isn't usually admissible.

There's actually a good reason for this. In rape cases in the past, defendants would love to show a rape victim's (female, let's be clear) past sexual history as an indicator that "no, really, she was asking for it and no rape could possibly have occurred with a woman of such loose morals." I'll grant that the system is inherently flawed in a huge number of other ways, and even in this one it's imperfect, but there's a rational reason for that kind of evidence to be barred.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Prior history is a bit more important in cases of molestation, though I can understand why they may not want it admitted. Also, this wasn't a case of rape, even if she was really begging for it there isn't a case (in Pa) where a 12 year old can consent to sexual contact with a 48 year old man.

The bigger issue was that certain conversations were left out. The prior (fired) a.d.a. made an agreement not to bring the conversations up because they centered on the 12 year old taking birth control pills. The pills were prescribed to regulate hormones, but the a.d.a. felt the defense would use the pills to suggest sexual activity. She agreed not to bring up the conversation (which included the kind of things that frankly only a child molester would discuss with a 12 year old), so the pills wouldn't come up. The new, current a.d.a. held to the agreement because the judge was causing nothing but problems, throwing out charges and narrowly interpreting law to help the defense, and she wanted to 'play nice' in order not to inflame the situation.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Jury duty is awesome, you're doing it wrong.

If I were simply observing the trial I would have been similarly disappointed. I was even more disappointed given that I had a hand in the process.

Jury Duty was otherwise pretty cool and I would do it again.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I'm going to intentionally eat beans when they do that jury screening thing.

And let them rip.

Just to see if they still take me.

My experience was an odd one in that I ended up arm wrestling a black man, found out after the trial that I was an alternate, and then all the lawyers gave me highfives. I just don't even know. I'd probabaly have done that shit for free.

In both jury selections I sat through the a.d.a. asked point blank "Is there anyone who just doesn't want to serve on a jury?". No one raised their hands but I have little doubt they would be excused with no problems if they did.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I'm all for serving on a jury.

I just want to see how it's handled.

I was surprised at how regimented everything was for the jury. At no time were we allowed out of the order we were picked. We were also not asked for any personal identification throughout the week, we just had to wear our juror badge all the time.

Dvergar /
Quisling