Skip to main content

I finished serving on a jury a few days ago - I was foreperson of a jury in a fairly serious criminal trial - and I wanted to give you my impressions and thoughts while still fresh in my mind.  This was my first time on a jury of any kind.  I was one of some 400 people who received a summons.  I have no idea why I was chosen to be on a criminal case (there were several civil cases that also required jurors).  I assume my being called up to sit in the jury seats where I was questioned by the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney was similarly coincidental, and I apparently passed muster.  The jury was informed by the judge before our jury started deliberations that I was to be foreperson.  Neither I nor anyone else on the 12-person jury objected.   But enough about me.   Let's get to the case.  The following are the agreed-upon facts, unless otherwise indicated.

                                                                      The Facts

In the summer of 2012, in a city a little north of New York, a couple were arguing in their apartment.  The man, African-American, was in his 40s.  His girlfriend, 20 years younger, was Caucasian.  (I am not revealing any names, to protect the not-guilty).  At some point before two in the morning, the man left.   His girlfriend followed him into the street.

At this point, an unmarked police car, with two officers in plain clothes, drove by on the street.  They were on car-jacking and auto-theft patrol - seeking to stop people from breaking into and stealing cars.  Noticing the woman standing in the street, they slowed down.  They then noticed a man (her boyfriend) on the sidewalk - who, they said, briefly ducked down behind a car when he saw them.  This resulted in the officers stopping in their car.

Accounts differed slightly as to the words exchanged at this point.  The officers say that the man said to them, "What the fuck are you looking at?"  (Note that cursing a police officer is not illegal in this jurisdiction.)   In any case, this was enough to get the officers out of their car.  They approached the man, who then allegedly said, "What the fuck do you want?"

Although the officers were dressed in plain clothes, they claimed that they had badges on lanyards around their necks which were clearly visible.   They claimed they identified themselves as police officers.  They noticed that the man had a gym bag in one hand and a small packet in the other, and dropped both on the ground.  He started to walk away.  Suspecting, the police officers said, that the small bag contained an illicit drug, they told the man he was under arrest.   The police say they no longer suspected a car jacking or auto theft at this point.

The man kept walking.  One of the officers ran up to him and grabbed his arm in a effort to handcuff him.  In the brief struggle that ensued, the officer sustained a broken nose - allegedly the result of the suspect's elbow, which the suspect swung behind him - and his partner sustained a broken hand.  This was acknowledged by that officer to have been caused by his punching the suspect's head, in an effort to subdue him.

The suspect was charged with Assaulting a Police Officer (a felony), and three misdemeanors, Obstructing Governmental Administration, Resisting Arrest, and Possession of Marijuana (which was found to be in the tiny packet).

The only tangible evidence presented in the course of the trial were stipulations by a doctor that the officer's nose had been broken, and by a forensic lab that the contents of the dime-bag were marijuana.  The rest was testimony by the two police officers, testimony by two additional officers who arrived on the scene after or just as the man was handcuffed, and testimony from the man's girlfriend.

                                                             My Assessment of the Facts

My thoughts before we commenced deliberation:  A man and his girlfriend are having an argument,  he leaves, she follows him out to the street, and, their bad luck, an unmarked police car comes by.  The officers were right to slow down and see what was going on, but no one alleged that there was any physical violence whatsoever in the street.  Indeed, all parties agree that the couple were not even involved in a verbal argument at this point.  But I think a woman standing in the street at two in the morning, with a man nearby on the sidewalk, was ample reason for a police car to slow down.  The officers were similarly right to be concerned that a car jacking or auto theft might have been about to happen.  But no car jacking or auto theft did happen, and the police soon concluded that no carjacking or auto theft was taking place.

So why, then, was the man put under arrest?  The officers say it was because of the small amount of marijuana which they suspected was in the packet, and apparently was.  But I think a more likely explanation is that they were angered by his attitude and cursing - neither of which, again, are illegal in the jurisdiction in which these events occurred.

Was the man right to be angered?   Who wouldn't be angered if, right after a nonviolent dispute you were having with your significant other in public, you were approached by strangers looking into your business?   If the strangers were police officers, and you knew you were doing nothing wrong, would this make you less angry?   Not likely.

Should the man have been more cooperative with the police?  Sure - that would have served all parties well.  But did the man break any law by having an aggressive attitude?

I couldn't help thinking:  This is Justice in America.  An argument with your significant other with no violence to either party ends with your being charged with a felony - assaulting a police officer.   Whose fault was that?

                                                            The  Jury's Job

We were instructed by the judge - who in my view did a good job - that our job on the jury was to determine whether the facts alleged by the prosecution were true.   In order to reach a verdict of guilty, we had to believe the prosecution's account "beyond a reasonable doubt".  You've all heard of this standard.  The judge correctly explained that, in human affairs, few things are subject to 100% certainty.   So we did not need to be 100% sure of every charge.  But we had to be a lot more than pretty or even mostly sure.   If the Prosecution presented 100 points, and we had doubts about even one of them, we were bound to find the Defendant not guilty.  In fact, we all swore an oath to uphold that standard.

The Prosecution's case against the Defendant for assaulting a police officer depended on three points - each of these had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order for us to render a verdict of guilty:  (a) that the injury (broken nose) had in fact occurred, (b) that the defendant knew at the time he caused the injury that the recipient of the injury was a police officer, who was legally performing his work, and (c) that the injury was a deliberate act by the defendant - that he swung his elbow with the express intent of breaking the officer's nose, or at least causing him bodily harm.

Point (a) - the broken nose - was beyond dispute, and acknowledged by the Defense.  Point (b) - that the defendant knew he was in a tussle with a police officer when the defendant swung his arm - was not as immediately obvious.  At what point did the defendant know the two men who approached him in plain clothes were police officers?  Presumably when one of the said "you're under arrest," which presumably happened before the fight.  But there was no proof like the broken nose to indicate exactly when the defendant was so informed.  Point (c) was the least obviously true.   Did the defendant swing his arm to hurt the officer, or was the officer hurt as the defendant struggled to break free?  The Defense in fact claimed that the broken nose was accidentally caused by the officer's partner during the fight.

This assault charge was by far the most serious, and I suggested to the jury that we consider that first.

                                                         The Jury's Deliberations

The jury consisted of twelve people - nine women and three men.  No African-Americans were on the jury.  (An African-American man who was questioned by the Judge, Prosecutor, and Defense Attorney during the selection phase was not chosen.)

I began by asking for a straw poll on the assault charge - non-binding, to get a sense of where we stood as a jury.   The majority of the jury were undecided.   Among those who were decided, there was a slight majority in favor of a guilty vote.

The undecideds were interested in the guilty and not-guilty voters explaining their opinions.

Those who thought the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt cited the broken nose, and their belief that the defendant deliberately tried to break the officer's nose or otherwise do him bodily damage in order to escape.

Those who thought the defendant was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were less than sure that the defendant knew he was swinging his elbow at a police officer, and even more unsure that the defendant was deliberately trying to hurt the officer.  These jurors thought it a reasonable possibility that the defendant was trying to break loose and flee, and the officer's broken nose was a result of the Defendant flailing in an attempt to break his arms free rather than a deliberate attack on the face of the officer.

I was among the jurors who had reasonable doubts about the Defendant's guilt, mainly because I saw no evidence that he was trying to do harm in contrast to trying to break loose and flee.  I mentioned the well-known distinction in sociobiology between fight and flight - most mobile organisms do one or the other as a first response to imminent danger.

There was also the question of the reliability and truth of the Prosecution's case.   One problem with presenting more than one witness on any side of a case is that they all must agree.  There were inconsistencies in the testimony of the officers, and the Prosecutor in his summation made no attempt to explain this.   We took another straw poll before we broke for lunch.  The undecideds were now in the minority, and those who changed their vote had decided to join the not-guilty voters.  But there was still more than one juror strongly in favor of a guilty vote.

When we resumed deliberations after lunch, I mentioned that if we could not reach a unanimous verdict, and we reported that to the judge, then the judge might well declare us a hung jury.  The Judge could then dismiss the case but more likely would allow the Prosecution to decide whether to retry it.   In any case, our deliberations would have likely been in vain.   Those who wanted a guilty verdict said they very much did not want that to happen - they wanted our jury to reach a verdict.

I mentioned that, short of a time machine, there was no way we could go back in time and see for ourselves what actually happened in that street.  I said all we therefore had to go by was what the Prosecution and the Defense and their witnesses had told us.   And, although there of course were strong differences between the Prosecution and the Defense, there were no inconsistencies or contradictions within the Defense's case.  In contrast, everyone on the jury agreed that there were indeed inconsistencies in the Prosecution's case.

I asked the jury - does this not mean that we have reasonable doubt?  We went around the table and expressed our views.  Those who had wanted a guilty verdict said they still felt in their bones that the defendant was guilty, but they could see that there could conceivably be a little bit of doubt because of the contradictions in the Prosecution's case.   The four jurors who had wanted a guilty verdict now each confirmed that they had this doubt.   We voted again.  Our jury was unanimous on the Assault felony charge: Not Guilty.

                                                                     The Other Charges

The sense of most people on our jury was that the Defendant had indeed at some point resisted arrest, and that the bag he had dropped contained marijuana.  The Judge had instructed us that we were not to base our verdict on the marijuana charge - a very minor misdemeanor - on any view that marijuana should be legal and the law was wrong.  Our job was to judge or try the facts, not the law.

But the second charge - "Obstructing Governmental Administration" - was a problem for many of the jurors, including me.   How was that different from "Resisting Arrest"?  And if no different, why was the Defendant being charged twice with the same crime?

During the trial, no charge other than the felony assault had been addressed by the Judge or the lawyers.  We asked the Judge to explain the difference between the two charges.  He replied by reading the law for each charge.  We needed clarification.  I proposed to ask the Judge, can you give us an example of a crime would which be Obstructing Governmental Administration and which would not be Resisting Arrest?  His reply was extremely helpful:  Obstructing Governmental Administration in this case would be any alleged crimes which were not Resisting Arrest.

I asked the jury if they could think of any actions by the Defendant against the police on that evening that obstructed the police - other than the alleged Assault, for which we had found the Defendant not guilty, and Resisting Arrest?   No one could think of an example - because in fact none had been presented in the trial.  We voted on the Obstructing charge.  We unanimously voted: Not Guilty.

The Defendant's Resisting Arrest was in many ways beyond dispute.  He certainly had resisted what the two approaching men had told him to do.  Did he not know they were police officers?  The Defense  had mentioned that they were dressed in plain clothes, and the girlfriend had said she and the Defendant had not known who the two men were at first, but what about the moment when they said "You're under arrest?"   Without any evidence or testimony that the Defendant did not know the men were police officers at the moment they tried to put him in handcuffs - which seemed very unlikely - the vast majority of the jury wanted a Guilty verdict on this misdemeanor charge.

I thought the Defendant had been mistreated by the police in this incident, that they had allowed it to escalate and even instigated the escalation by their poor performance, but I could not think of any evidence that showed the Defendant did not know the two men were police at the time the handcuffs were applied.  I and the few other jurors joined the majority and reluctantly voted Guilty on Resisting Arrest.

I similarly was not happy about the Possession of Marijuana charge - such possession is already legal in many jurisdictions and will sooner or later be legal in all.    Everyone on the jury acknowledged this.   But we had to have reasonable doubt about whether the Defendant was carrying marijuana in order for us to acquit him on this charge - for example, we needed to think that the police might have planted this evidence.  The Defense had made no claim that this is what had happened, and no evidence or argument had been presented that the police had done this.   On this last, very minor charge, the verdict was again unanimous but also mostly reluctant:  Guilty on Possessing Marijuana.

                                                                  The Aftermath

I stood up in court, from my juror's seat, and announced the verdicts, just like you see it done on television.   When I was asked by the clerk for the jury's unanimous verdict on the Assaulting a Police Officer charge, I said Not Guilty, with an emphasis on the Not.  It did my soul good to be able to say this.

A man who had been doing nothing wrong - except, technically, possession of an illegal substance which is legal to possess in many parts of our country - stood trial and stood to lose years of his life in prison had he been found guilty.   The jury informally had all agreed that the police had not handled this situation well - allowing a suspicion of car theft, which had not been going on, to escalate into a struggle which had resulted in a broken nose and a broken hand.  And we also had agreed, formally in our verdict, that we did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant had intentionally sought to break the officer's nose, or do harm to his body.   So the Defendant had been been found Not Guilty on this serious charge.

As the jury was dismissed and left the courtroom, one of the alternates came up to me and said, "Good thing I wasn't on the jury, I would have been the one hold-out against your decision."

Good thing, indeed - though this alternate may well have come to agree with our decision had he sat with us in our deliberations.   But I believe a good thing was indeed done that day.

It's rare to be able to have a profound influence on the life of a person you do not even know.   But I believe we did that day.   We fairly considered all of the evidence and the testimony, and concluded that he was guilty on the two most minor charges.   His acquittal on the serious felony charge will give him a chance to re-set his life.   Given that he had done nothing wrong that evening until the police dressed in plain clothes approached, he deserved that chance - in a moral sense.  And the lack of evidence that he intended to hurt the officers showed he deserved that chance in the legal sense.

On that day, at least, I believe Justice had indeed been done in America.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Serious stuff. Thanks for your clear analysis. I (8+ / 0-)

    bet some picked up on your obfectivity and respect for the process and that is why you were picked to be the foreperson.  Your account above is the best there is on a jury process I have seen anywhere by a person who just wanted to do what was right under the law.  You and the other jurors are to be commended for your task and the seriousness with which you carried it out.  This case is why some say we are the envy of the world for our system of justice.  I know this doesn't always happen and many problems arise, but here is this post, the glory of civilization at it's best.

  •  This is really fascinating to me. Prosecutors (7+ / 0-)

    and criminal defense attorneys so rarely get insight into jury deliberations and the thought process that leads to a verdict.  Things that might seem super clear while preparing don't necessarily translate into arguments that a jury buys.  On the flip side, an argument that I might feel is weak/not particularly convincing might be something a jury really locks onto.  

    Great diary!

  •  this was very interesting. thanks for posting it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, nuclear winter solstice

    I was only ever called for jury duty once. The case settled just before the trial was to start.

  •  "Jury Nullification" - You had the right to not (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem, Kingsmeg, kurt

    convict just because you didn't want to. All pot charges like that need to be thrown out. We're long past the point in time when the citizens need to lead the country on this subject.

    The resisting arrest probably happened, but only if you agree that the defendant knew that an arrest was taking place. The evidence on this point did not have to be accepted if you did not find the testimony to be credible.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sat May 25, 2013 at 03:48:18 PM PDT

    •  that nullifies democracy. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neuroptimalian, Clem Yeobright

      The people make laws through the democratic process.  except in truly egregious circumstances, nullification is flat out immoral.  It's an act of violence against the citizenry.

      •  That's not correct. (4+ / 0-)

        I disagree with each of these sentences. "the people make laws through the democratic process". No -- The process by which laws are made is  deeply undemocratic -- to give but the most obvious example, in the US Senate the voice of an Alaska resident countes 50 times more than that of a California voter.

        "Nullification is flat out immoral" -- not unless you equate the law with morality. That is, not unless you're prepared to argue that laws allowing one man to be property of another -- to cite but one example -- are OK. The moral status of nullification is intimately connected with the moral status of the given law.

        The manner in which the law is applied can also be immoral, in which case nullification may be the only tool an average person has to try to restore morality.  Given the egregiously discriminatory way in which drug laws are enforced, this is quite relevant.

        "It's an act of violence against the citizenry." You don't know the meaning of violence.

        •  the juries I've been on have been instructed by (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the judge about the very concept of jury nullification and where it fits.

          •  what state, and what did the judge say? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nuclear winter solstice


            •  NH, at the county level (0+ / 0-)

              and he said that there could be times where the law so obviously did not fit anyone, not just the plaintiff involved, that it shouldn't be that way anymore and could be set aside by us.
                  That's a total paraphrase, I'm sure there is legalese for that, but that was my understanding: that the law in front of us had to be applied exactly as it read and not 'interpreted' by by us to fit the situation, but that if the law blatantly didn't fit or was against what was right we could say that.
                  The way that applied in one case was like this: The plaintiff blamed the restaurant in which he fell down due to a wet floor. We, the jury felt that the restaurant was only partly at fault because they had clearly marked the floor, and also had started to say "we'll pay for his Emergency Room trip", but the plaintiff had decided (after a year on his back- he did in fact break it) that he deserved ten tons more in lost wages than he was really worth and due to other courtroom circumstances we could see he was trying to sleaze out as much moola as possible and we did NOT think the restaurant deserved that because the man had been playing hookey from work the very day he got hurt...
                  But because the letter of the law in front of us specified all or nothing as far as the guilt and compensation, either it was the man's fault or the restaurant's and we were not allowed to say it was 50/50 or 60/40 or whatever. The only choices we had were to blame one party or to set aside the law through nullification because it was a badly written law.
                  In this case the guy was such a jerk and should have just shut up and taken the initial offer. And actually he should have just gone to work that day and it nevah woulda happened... bad karma headed for worse.

      •  I don't create law. You don't create law. What do (0+ / 0-)

        you want to do,violate the sanctity of the Jury Chambers to moniter and police deliberations?

        The established rule is, and always has been. that jurors can and should vote their conscience.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sat May 25, 2013 at 07:20:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  we risked being dismissed as a jury (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kingsmeg, kurt

      if we had gone for jury nullification.

      And that might have led to a new trial, which would have undone our Not Guilty verdict on the Assault charge.

      So, yeah, I knew about Jury Nullification, but given its uncertain result, I didn't want to go down that path for such minor charges.

      And also - I think johnny wurster's point above has some merit.

      "the remedy to be applied is more speech" -- Louis Brandeis

      by PaulLev on Sat May 25, 2013 at 04:21:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What makes you say that you might be dismissed? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The jury does not need to justify its reasoning to the judge.

        •  interesting - (3+ / 0-)

          the judge gave the impression that he could indeed ask us to explain our reasoning - he certainly indicated that we might be polled, though perhaps I was reading more into that than was warranted.

          But another problem with jury nullification is that I highly doubt that everyone in the jury would have gone for that - especially given his explicit and repeated instruction that we were to try only the alleged facts not the applicable law.

          "the remedy to be applied is more speech" -- Louis Brandeis

          by PaulLev on Sat May 25, 2013 at 04:48:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and I'm off to dinner (0+ / 0-)

            so won't be able to reply to anything here for a few hours.

            But I very much appreciate everyone's comments here.

            "the remedy to be applied is more speech" -- Louis Brandeis

            by PaulLev on Sat May 25, 2013 at 04:51:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I'm not taking issue with your decision (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            417els, kurt, PaulLev

            not to attempt jury nullification.  I brought it up just because in the diary you didn't say you knew about it.  

            Again, thanks for your service and your report.

          •  "Polling is "did you vote the way that the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Foreperson says that you did?"

            Jury nullification is an acknowledgement that each and every Juror enters the Deliberations as a "Peer", a responsibility that you have admirably demonstrated you performed. But the defendant, as do all involved in your case, has a conscience. And Defendants and all others have a responsibility to help promote the greater good. Jurors have the right to evaluate these things, also.

            Nobody, ever, asked you to perpetuate an injustice. Nor should you ever do so. Nor, based on your superbly prepared account, will you need to concern yourself over when you have jury duty in the future.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sat May 25, 2013 at 07:36:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Recommended for your service and clear report. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, nuclear winter solstice

    But you should know that judges lie to juries every day when they say that the jury is only allowed to consider  whether the allegations are factual. There is no law to that effect, and the constitutions of several states in fact state the opposite:

    In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.
    (Indiana constitution - emphasis mine)
    •  thanks - do you know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      whether New York State has such a law?

      If it does, then couldn't/shouldn't the judge in my case be reported for instructing us in a way that goes specifically contrary to the law?

      If NYS does not have such a law, then to what extent are judges allowed to instruct a jury to find only on matters of fact and not law?

      "the remedy to be applied is more speech" -- Louis Brandeis

      by PaulLev on Sat May 25, 2013 at 04:36:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Paul - in your diary you don't mention how well (0+ / 0-)

        the defendant did on the witness stand and how credible he was. Also the girlfriend. How did they do as witnesses?

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sat May 25, 2013 at 05:55:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the defendant didn't take the stand (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nuclear winter solstice, VClib

          the girlfriend did -

          In my opinion, she was very helpful to the defense, mainly because she provided a very convincing account of how frightened she was at the sight of her boyfriend being beaten by the police.

          Those on the jury who at first wanted a guilty verdict said they thought her testimony might have been a "good act".  I responded that she would had to have been a Meryl Streep class actress to give such a good performance, and most of the jury agreed.

          Several jurors expressed a little concern that the defendant didn't take the stand.  But I and other jurors mentioned the judge's admonition that we were not to draw any adverse inferences from that.

          "the remedy to be applied is more speech" -- Louis Brandeis

          by PaulLev on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:05:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think NY does not. (0+ / 0-)

        In states where there isn't an explicit right of jury nullification written in the constitution, the arguments are based on precedent, the 9th amendment, and the absence of a law saying that only facts can be considered.

        But judges can say pretty much what they please.  

  •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sat May 25, 2013 at 04:50:43 PM PDT

  •  I hope you serve on any jury empanneled to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ascertain my guilt or innocence (and that you serve again as foreperson).

    Were the two cops white?

    •  I just assumed they were, (0+ / 0-)

      from how it played out,

      Were the two cops white?
      And I would have voted not guilty on the pot charge because they had no business searching his bag.  False arrest means that whatever they found while arresting him isn't admissible, and his lawyer should have argued that.  But I guess his lawyer just assumed an all-white jury would find him guilty.

      190 milliseconds....

      by Kingsmeg on Sat May 25, 2013 at 06:02:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the pot was in a small packet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nuclear winter solstice

        which the cops said the defendant dropped on the street in their plain view, and the defense didn't really deny (being focused on the assault charge).

        And yes, as I just indicated in a comment, you're right that the cops were white.

        It's too bad that the defendant didn't just keep the pot in his pocket - or that the defense didn't argue that that's where it was.

        The fact that pot is illegal anywhere is wrong.  And this case shows that, among the damage that is done by that wrong is it can give cops a convenient excuse to put someone under arrest.

        But, again, in the trial no one offered any evidence that that is what happened, or even made an argument like that.

        "the remedy to be applied is more speech" -- Louis Brandeis

        by PaulLev on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:15:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  thank you and yes - (0+ / 0-)

      the two cops were white.

      The defense alleged and the girlfriend testified that one of the cops told her to "stay with your own kind".

      The cops denied that earlier under direct examination, and again under cross examination.

      The issue was raised in our deliberations, but didn't play much of a role, since there was no evidence other than the conflicting testimony.

      "the remedy to be applied is more speech" -- Louis Brandeis

      by PaulLev on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:09:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good for you. A Civil Service well done. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I was on a jury once that discovered half-way through the trial that the plaintiff was actually lying and had set up an elaborate scene to get the defendant (her now ex-boyfriend) arrested, knowing that he had a 5-year suspended sentence just waiting to fall on him. By the end of the trial she had accidentally shown herself to be mean and vindictive enough to do that, and while he was certainly no angel, he didn't deserve to go to prison under pretenses of something he actually didn't (and most likely wouldn't) do.
         It was gratifying when we all felt confident that the truth had been found, and a man's life was changed in a positive way. (I suspect he will never get involved with a chick like that again!)

  •  I was foreman (0+ / 0-)

    on a jury considering an assault charge against an 18 year old man accused of injuring an underage drunk, a 16 year old girl weighing 99 lbs who said that she had perfect recall of the events that happened after she drank a 6-pack in an hour.  She contended that he had deliberately pushed her, causing an injury.

    The alleged assailant's witness testified that he had tried to walk away several times, and she kept getting in front of him confrontationally.  He finally pushed her away and she fell backwards onto a picnic area bbq grill, cutting her scalp and bruising her shoulder and head.

    I was elected foreperson because I kept gently reminding one of the jurors who was making irrelevant remarks of the judge's instructions.

    I had my fellow jurors focus on 2 things:  Which witnesses were credible?  Whose testimony could we believe? and did he (as the statute required) act deliberately or negligently to injure her?

    We all decided that a 99 pound person drinking a 6 pack in less than an hour (which she admitted) could not have the kind of recall she claimed, so only the other witness, who had not been drinking (he was a designated driver at this under-age drinking party) was believable.  From his testimony, we concluded that the defendant had not acted negligently or deliberately, and that he didn't see the bbq hazard in the dark.

    Not guilty.

    It turned out that the young lady was the daughter of a state trooper, who had insisted that she press charges because she needed 6 stitches in her scalp.

    I told the defendant outside the courthouse after the trial that he was lucky, and if he had any sense he would stop attending those beach beer parties.  I also told the prosecutor (who lives a block away from me) that he had wasted the state's money and the jury's time trying a case with such a poor witness, and in a roundabout way, he indicated that it had not been his choice to go to trial.

    The young lady ended up with a DWI within 6 months and under our state law, lost her driver's license until she turned 21.  She didn't have a second arrest, but now see her hanging out at bars every weekend, taking cabs home.  Some folks just don't learn.


    "Everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die" --- Albert King

    by HarpboyAK on Sun May 26, 2013 at 01:08:44 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site