During the summer, I received a summons to partake in a jury selection process on four separate dates from September through December. Prior to me venturing to the courthouse on the first three dates, I was informed that the cases had been settled. That wasn't the case on the fourth and final date, however, and I wound up sitting in a room of approximately 35 people Tuesday morning, of which 12 of us would soon be hearing and ruling on a legal case (14 including the alternates). While I was not one of the first twelve selected, after a couple of potential jurors were removed from their duties due to a variety of reasons, I was called up, asked a couple of questions by both the state and defense attorneys, and when everything was finalized, found myself sitting amongst the 12 jurors whom would be deciding the fate of the defendant.
Each of the jurors were then handed pens and notebooks, were presented with both the state's and defense's opening comments, before we observed the witness testimonies of three individuals, including the defendant. We were then dismissed for the day, returned yesterday morning, heard both sides' closing arguments, before returning to the jury room to deliberate, and that's where things got really interesting.
This was my first such experience, and understandably, I had no idea what to expect - this was especially the case when it came to deliberations between the other eleven jurors and myself. In this country, one is said to be innocent until proven guilty, and as both the prosecution and defense noted, the burden of proof was on the state to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. From the opening comments to the closing arguments, I felt that they fell short of this endeavor. There were too many holes in the story, too many unanswered questions, too many contradictions for me to have felt comfortable in convicting the defendant, and due to this, I had a feeling (wishful thinking) the deliberation process would be a short one. Well, I was wrong.
When we got seated and comfortable in the jury room, I suggested we all take an initial vote to see where we currently stood and whether or not deliberation was even necessary. So we wrote our votes on a piece of paper and the foreman read the votes aloud. The tally was: 5 for guilty, 4 for not guilty, and 3 with question marks. It was at that point I knew it was going to be a long afternoon, with a mistrial being quite possible. To all twelve jurors' credit, we all displayed respect when another was talking and things never got out of hand as far as tempers or arguments go. Then, not to toot my horn TOO much, but I did seem to be the voice of reason and persuasion between the jury's first and second votes, as I simply pointed out that, while it was easy for each and every one of us to try and fill the holes in the story ourselves, to try and answer the questions we still had regarding the case, and ultimately rule on what we don't know, but as the judge told us, we can only make our decisions based on the evidence we were presented in court. We can't go by gut feeling or emotion. We can't allow prejudice to interfere with deciding another person's fate. We can't Google information about the defendant. We could only use the information provided to us in the courtroom to decide whether or not she was guilty, and we had to ultimately decide whether or not the state did its job in proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crimes for which she was accused. I then pointed out some inconsistencies I observed/heard via my notes, some holes in the story, several unanswered questions which still remained, and closed by saying, "Look, it's possible she's guilty of at least one of these five crimes, but it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not ruling on whether or not she's completely innocent. We're deciding whether the state attorneys proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether she was guilty or not, and I can't for the life of me believe they did."
After 60-90 minutes, I suggested we take a second vote to see if we had made any progress in one direction or the other. The tally went from 5 guilty, 4 not guilty, 3 question marks to 9 not guilty, 2 guilty, 1 question mark. The individual who wrote a question mark spoke up and said he was leaning not guilty, so we had just two more individuals to convince. Before too terribly long, we were able to provide reasonable doubt to one of the two, were standing at 11-1, with the lone holdout being the foreman. To his credit, he didn't extend his holdout for longer than 15-30 minutes. A former attorney then spoke up and said, "We used to have this inside ruling, where we said, 'Not guilty, but not innocent.' We also said, 'It's better to let a guilty person go free than to lock up someone who's innocent'."
When we reentered the courtroom and the judge read off our rulings, I simply watched the expressions on the faces of the attorneys, and especially the defendant. In all honesty, I didn't sense any feelings of anger, surprise, or disappointment from the state attorneys. What I did see was joy emanating from the faces of the defense attorney and especially his client. When I started my way to the exits, I observed the defendant on a bench by herself, bawling her eyes out. Her boyfriend walked over, and as I was walking down the stairs, I heard him say, "I told you!" and, as she continued crying, she said, "I wouldn't have ever been able to work again." As tempted as I was to stand around and try to hear more of the conversation, wanting to know if I (we) ultimately made the right decision, I just couldn't do it. As I walked back to my car, mixed emotions came over me. I felt shaky, thinking that, while I (we) did the right thing, there was still a chance she was guilty and feeling a knot in my stomach as a result.
After taking a nap, I decided, rightly or wrongly, to check Facebook to see if the defendant was on there and whether or not she provided any clues to whether or not she was guilty. Well, it turns out she does possess such an account and had already posted a very heartfelt message with regard to the jury's decision - coming across as genuine in her belief she was "innocent" and grateful, even suggesting that hearing the verdicts was the most nerve-racking, yet happiest moment of her life. Between that message and her profile picture being that of her and her four kids smiling, I felt a little more at ease with my (our) decision.
In the end, while jury duty was quite fascinating to me, it was also emotionally draining. The life of a young mother of four kids was placed in our hands. If she had been convicted of any of the charges, her life, and that of her kids, would have forever changed, and not for the better. While I had mixed feelings about my not guilty vote, however, I would have felt completely wrong voting guilty. If the jury had reached an 11-1 point in favor of guilty, with me being the lone holdout, I'm not sure I could have followed suit. A person is said to be innocent until proven guilty and it's the state's job to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and this didn't occur. No matter what the actual story is with regard to this young mother, I sincerely hope she uses this moment, for which she's shown a great deal of gratitude, to help improve herself, her life, and perhaps most importantly, the lives of her kids. Sometimes we don't know what we truly have until we face the prospect of losing it all. Hopefully this serves as a wake-up call to her and she experiences better, brighter chapters in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment