This is Your War on Drugs.
One bright day in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys stood up to fight,
One was blind, the other could not see,
They chose a dummy for a referee,
Back to back they faced each other,
Drew their swords and shot one another,
And when the deaf policeman heard the noise,
he came to arrest the two dead boys,
If you don't believe my lie is true,
Ask the blind man, he saw it too.
This past week I was summoned to Jury Duty and chosen to hear a Felony Murder case that highlights, again, how the war on drugs takes reasonable normal folks and transforms them, over time, into monsters that absolutely have to be brought down.
This is a long story. Please get some coffee and get comfy and follow me over the fold.....
Summoned
My experience with Jury Duty this time around was very impactful. From getting there on Monday am and waiting with about 400 other folks, to getting my name read (poorly!) and going through voir dire and being chosen for 'duty' and then sitting through a trial and the deliberation and reaching a verdict, it was a very interesting and quite emotionally stressful event for me and 12 other people, not to mention the parents of those involved: the mother of the dead 'victim' and the mother of the young man facing consequences for felony murder of said victim.
There was an interesting array of folks there, well off white folks, well-off black folks, not-so-well-off white folks (yours truly) and not-so-well-heeled black folks. Men Women, rich poor, white, black and Hispanic all comprising the 60 folks who were interviewed during the process of voir dire.
Like others, I had hoped, initially, to NOT be chosen and towards this end I dressed terribly, didn't wash my hair; tried to make myself visually unappealing.
FAIL.
I was busted during voir dire: I was asked about what I did and the whole "licensed professional counselor" bit made me seem as legitimate as the financial analyst guy who sat behind me looking for all the world like Alec Baldwin - he wasn't chosen. It didn't matter how I looked - which is part of the point. Before the end of the first day of voir dire, the others were teasing me "Oh, they are really interested in you".
Selected
At the beginning of voir dire, of course, we were told this was a felony murder case and we were asked a variety of general questions surrounding our knowledge of the area of this crime. I had delivered pizzas to that particular apartment complex back in 2004 and 2005. This incident occurred a bit after that. I had always known this place was rough but I never knew how rough. You'll learn a bit more about that as this unfolds.
After the general questioning they empaneled potential jurors in the jury box, 12 at a time and asked for clarification of various answers. When asked what I did, there was interest in that I was doing professional work with seriously mentally ill people. This seemed to be as good as being wealthy and successful. I advised that I was able to approach the facts in the case impartially.
The process continued all through the day Monday and into Tuesday. I learned about lunchtime on Tuesday I was going to the show. I let my job know I was going to be MIA the rest of the week and waited for the trial to start. It started pretty much right after lunch. I approached this as seriously as anything and will write something else soon addressing the need for people not try to shirk jury duty.
One bright day, in the middle of the night
The word seemed to be that both the defense and the prosecution inherited a case that was languishing in the courts, backlogged by all the other court cases - many of which are doubtlessly tied to the war on drugs too.
The prosecutor was a very attractive younger woman, made a good initial impression which lasted for a couple of days. The Defense attorney seemed more down-to-Earth and significantly more experienced and at least less dramatic than the prosecutor turned out to be.
Despite the seeming specifics, I will not be divulging much about the details of the case. I am treating it as reasonably confidential even though I think I am free to speak about it now. It just doesn't seem right, so I am not doing it. All the names are changed and the location is non-specific, though I am certain there are similar incidents all the time ion big cities across America.It's out of control in Mexico.
Long and short here's what appeared to happen, assembled from all the conflicting testimony and my memory and perspective, opening an closing arguments, but particularly from the defendant, who was the MOST credible witness outside of some - just some- law enforcement folks.
A couple years ago in an area south of Atlanta, in a very rough, predominantly black residential/apartment complex area a deal had been set up between a guy we will call Sherman and a guy I will call Special K.
NOTE: You don't want to grow up to be Special K, the guy everybody refers to as "that dude with the gold teef".
Special K and the the Defendant (hereafter called Big D) had known each other for a number of years and in both their testimony it seemed like they would hang out together but that much of the relationship was that Big D felt comfortable fronting thousands of dollars of cocaine to Special K who would set up deals. He'd set up the deal, make the transaction and then return what money he owed to Big D. It was a business.
ON the fateful day, Sherman came to an apartment complex in which he had been told to meet Special K, the building to meet at was one in which Big D and his organization had a stash house in an apartment in the building. Special K got a couple ounces of cocaine fronted to him and was hanging out in the parking lot waiting for Sherman.
When Big D fronts the cocaine he asks how long the turnaround is thought to be. Special K had told him something like 20 minutes or so.
One thing that emerged early in the trial is that many of these people and all the people in Big D's organization won't even go to the bathroom without carrying a gun of some sort. Big D had not been anticipating any trouble when one of his associates had to make a run to the store and borrowed Big D's usual handgun. can't go without a gun. That's what a lot of these folks believe unquestioningly.
Big D decided too much time had elapsed and he wondered what was up with Special K and the deal. He asked another member of the group for "a tool" and was handed a "chopper".
The Defense and Prosecution both used the term AK-47. Big D says the one he had had a shorter barrel and altered stock, and was mostly black, perhaps like the one below. The actual weapon was never recovered.
AKS 74U.
Big D took this thing and went outside - the stash house is on the back side of the building, away from many eyes. He carried down the steps and around to the side of the building, towards the front. At the side of the building is a large bush and he slid the gun, barrel-first, into the bush with just the butt of the stock visible just in case he needed it. He walked over into the middle of the deal,which was taking place in the parking lot in a vacant space between 2 parked cars and which was staged to look like people are buying crappy knock-off Nike shoes and asked "wassup?"
Special K said Sherman wanted more coke, a couple more ounces. Big D reported that he asked if Sherman had that sort of cash - about $5000 - and was told "yeah". Big D says he then took off to go back to the apartment and fetch his stash.
And this is where it all got fuzzy.
Witnesses seem to agree that Sherman got all squirrely but exact details vary greatly. Sherman at some moment whipped out a large shiny gun and appears to have taken Special K hostage: he either had him in a choke hold and had the gun against his head or he had him by the shirt tail with a gun at his head - details is sketchy. Big D reports he was walking back to the corner of the building to go fetch some more coke when he heard a commotion, turned and saw Sherman holding K and putting a gun to his head. Big D says Sherman was demanding the cocaine from K and pointing the gun back and forth from K to him (D) and threatening to shoot "both of you".
Big D then put his hands in the air and continued to walk backwards to the corner of the building, to the bush with the big gun in it. He says he got that gun and immediately ran a zig-zag towards the car that had shoes set up on it and used it for a shield and drew down on Sherman. In the blink of an eye, Special K appeared to have dove through the back seat of this car in a Jackie-Chan-like maneuver, coming out on the other side at Big D's feet. Sherman appears to have fired at Big D and missed. Big D shot him at very close range with that gun - it fires a 7.62 caliber shell and has massive knock-down power - and didn't miss.
Sherman went down and Big D went on the run. We're not sure what happened with Special K or 2 ounces of coke: drugs weren't found at the scene. Neither was Sherman's gun. It was never recovered even though several witnesses said they had seen it: one, a friend of Sherman's, claimed to have tossed it away.
A LOT of the exact details we were presented were contradictory, fuzzy, and very often shady.
Some people attempted to start CPR but this was a lost cause. The bullet tore through his lungs, exiting out his back and luckily for everybody else, into another car before stopping. He bled to death from a huge hole in his back in just a couple of minutes. A couple guys swooped in on the body and rifled through his clothes. Nobody wanted to talk to the police. Nobody wanted to be "involved". Fear. The Code of the Streets. Whatever.
I had a lot of problems with the way the Prosecutor handled the case in the courtroom. She presents very well as professional and respectable, sharply dressed and all that. but, as the case unfolded, it was clear she had assembled a lot of witnesses that were rather needless as much of what they said more or less just corroborated what Big D had already said. He never said he didn't shoot AT the guy, he just maintained he never knew there was a problem until arrested in another state about 6 weeks later. He claims he just didn't know and wasn't concerned about it, until he got caught.
The Prosecution really hammered away on the words "AK-47" and "assault rifle". It was like they wanted to make the jury people feel alarm and revulsion for this guy, who, again never minced words about what he did: he was drug dealer, part of a larger organization of similar guys with stash houses and other places peppered all over the area in various complexes and houses. These places are loaded with guns and many thousands of dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs at any time.
It is true these are people living well outside the law. They carry guns everywhere they go, they expect trickery and attack at most every moment, and I imagine they traffic in illegal weapons as well as cocaine and other drugs. (Marijuana never came up at the trial except of Big D talking about smoking a blunt while waiting on Special K to return. Just chillin', he said.The prosecution didn't play this up much at all that I can remember.)
But the way they amplified this with all sorts of faux-outrage and theatrics was annoying to more people than just me. It was painful to watch and quite frankly, I was ready to acquit the guy, their case was so bad. Yes, he was a drug dealer and yes he's a danger but the case was just that bad.
Deliberation
The Closing Arguments (mercifully) ended and the Judge 'charged' the Jury with the task and read the laws we were to strictly consider. We were read the law regarding 'self-defense', the conditions under which one may be justified in using serious or deadly force.
Here is that law:
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21
Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
As I said, initially I was for letting Big D off the hook. I didn't think he was a very nice man, but I felt 'reasonable doubt' based on the sheer nonsense from the State's case. During the discussion we had somebody had pointed out his backing up with his hands up and linked it to the 'communicating his withdrawal from the encounter'.
During his testimony, Big D re-enacted his version of things and there was a very clear moment when he realizes Sherman was doing something that concerned him that he turned around and realized he was in danger and put his hands up and walked backwards away from the encounter.
Sherman, however squirrely, was NOT alleged by anybody to have followed Big D.
Big D, himself, told us all about how he backed up to the corner of the building and retrieved the AK 47 and re-entered the fray. In the end this was his undoing. Pix from the scene clearly show he would have been better off and better served by diving to the backside of the bush and the building. That would have saved his ass. And Sherman's.
But, no. He zig-zagged his way back to the other side of the car and when Sherman shot at him (I came away believe Sherman shot at him) he blasted him into the next life with that huge gun. He discarded his self-defense claim the moment he touched that gun and moved back into the conflict. He clearly believed that he was under fire but the law is pretty clear, once we got the fact pattern established.
Furthermore, Big D was not legally allowed to protect his cocaine trade as he was not entitled to lawfully possess the cocaine. And good buddies or not, he was not justified in use of deadly force to 'save' Special K from his felonious cocaine deal, which Big D knew about fully. He simply becomes an accessory to THAT felony.
He had no leg to stand on and he is in prison for the better part of the rest of his life, with NOBODY to blame but himself.
2 dead boys
The photos from the scene - to me - were pretty tame, which was good for the good-natured folks on the jury: some foamy blood pooling in low areas near the car, mostly.
The autopsy photos were mercifully cleaned up. Still, it had to be miserable for Sherman's mom and family to see his dead blank stare again. And to see that huge gaping exit wound in his back.
I occasionally glanced sidewards to watch the family and the mom. She seemed maybe like she had adjusted to this - it was a couple years gone by. She never seemed to react emotionally. But there he was on a large tv screen with all the talk of the injuries and the drugs found in his system and so forth. There was no real sympathy for Sherman: as I told the prosecutor. Sherman could have nailed Big D and we'd all lament the death of Big D and call Sherman the monster - but he did not deserve to die.
We will never be able to know what may have occurred had Big D elected to not return to the conflict armed with a big gun. I have few doubts Big D wishes things would have been different, but he would have still been liable for felony assault for any attempt to rejoin the fray, as would anybody. That's the law and why this law exists.
Big D was sentenced to Life plus 5 Years. The judge said he would be up for parole in about 30 years. One of the other jurors told me she had spoken with mom, whom she described as very sweet, saying something to the effect that she never knew where he was or what he was up to before and now she'll know where he is.Sure, he's still alive, but he won't be up for parole for 30 years. He's also now a monster to people familiar with the case.
The trial and situation was very hard on the jury. I held up well, though I was still saddened by having to chose to put a guy away, despite how bad he may seem or actually be. Others, particularly the black ladies were very upset about the verdict,bursting into tears pretty much as soon as we took the last vote. It all sort of caught up with me as I wrote this up. Those poor moms are mostly what kill me, 2 sons gone. It's the essence of tragedy.
The only clear winner here was this prosecutor and the state. They won the case despite themselves. I suppose I shouldn't be so cynical but the prosecutor's case was really, really bad and they only won because Big D did such a nice job showing us exactly how he violated the law. I hope he knows this.
The War On Drugs
No. I don't have any bright ideas for what to do with drugs like cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine. They are problems. Legal or illegal.
That said, prohibition arguably amplifies these problems by making them more and more lucrative to make available to those who want them...and it creates the people and organizations necessary to move such product despite the enforcement.
Drug prohibition is a financial version of what lawyers call an 'attractive nuisance,' like an unfenced swimming pool in a neighborhood full of children. The profits are so huge they can tempt people normally beyond the reach of corruption
This is the synopsis of the Iron Law of Prohibition, a term coined by a man named Richard Cowan back in the late 1980's to explain "How the Narcs created Crack".
This dynamic accounts for how both the Shermans and the Big-D's of the world are created and how entities like the Mexican Cartels can thrive despite military intervention. Some make it, some don't, but the crimes go on, nourished by massive black market profits.
All the effort in the world to squelch drugs only makes them more lucrative to traffic. The more money there is the more it encourages people to break the law and live outside of it. It causes regular folks to change and it can corrupt the good. It causes the less able to fall away and rewards the ever-more ruthless.
Like a seemingly nice young man who would take a loaded assault rifle into a residential parking lot on a pleasant afternoon just to check on a small drug deal and end up killing some other seemingly nice man.
This is your war on drugs.