Showing posts with label Jury Deliberations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jury Deliberations. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

JURY DUTY

My daughter-in-law got called for jury duty last week but didn't get to serve. She said that it had something to do with the fact that I was her father-in-law. Apparently the prosecutor was perfectly content to have her serve, but the defense attorney didn't want her.

This incident reminded me of a similar incident many years ago. My wife Lane got a summons for jury duty. She told me about it as I walked in the door after a long day in court.

“I don’t want to serve on a jury,” she said.

“No problem,” I replied, “just call the judge’s office and explain your situation and they’ll let you off.”

Lane didn’t like that idea. “I don’t want to be given any special favors.”

“You won’t be. You’re pregnant, and pregnant women can be excused from jury duty if they ask”

“I’m not going to call the judge’s office.”

“Okay,” I said, “When you show up for jury duty they’ll ask you a bunch of questions, and the last one will be whether you have any reason to be excused from jury duty. Just go up to the judge’s bench and tell him you’re pregnant.”

“I don’t want to call attention to myself,” she said.

“You’re eight months pregnant. People are going to notice whether you call attention to yourself or not.” She was adamant that she wasn’t going to call attention to herself by asking to be excused. “Okay,” I said, “You probably  won’t be called into the box, and if you are the prosecutor will certainly challenge you.”

On the morning of Lane’s jury duty I was sitting as second chair counsel for the case that was set for trial. We had a newly hired assistant public defender, and I was showing him the ropes. You might ask how I, with less than a year’s experience, was showing anybody the ropes, but at that time I was the most experienced assistant public defender in my home town.

The judge asked the preliminary qualifying questions and then asked the style of the case set for trial. The prosecutor announced my client’s name, and we proceeded to jury selection. You’ll never guess whose name was the first one pulled out of the hat.
 
As Lane was walking to the jury box, my co-counsel asked me “What should I do about your wife?” I assured him that there was no need worrying about that issue, the prosecutor would never let her sit on the case. When the prosecutor finished his voir dire examination, he accepted the jury without exercising a challenge. My co-counsel asked me what he should do. I told him that I couldn’t advise him on that issue, he’d have to ask another public defender who was in court that day.

He walked over, conferred with the other public defender, and then announced that he was going to accept the jury without exercising any challenges. We were through with the trial by mid-afternoon, and our client was on his way to jail, having been convicted as charged of battery.  I asked the prosecutor why in heaven’s name did he allow my wife to sit on the jury. “I knew she’d never have another chance to sit as a juror, so I kept her.” I then asked the same question of the public defender who had given my co-counsel such bad advice. He said: “I knew she’d never have another chance to sit as a juror, so I told him to keep her.”
 
When I got home that afternoon, I sat Lane down and said “Tell me everything that went on in the jury deliberations.”
 
It seems that the first thing they did was try to elect her foreman because she was married to a lawyer, but she declined the honor. After electing another person foreman, they spent the next 10-15 minutes trying to figure out which lawyer was the prosecutor and which was the defense attorney. After she helped them sort out that thorny question, they were ready to deliberate. One juror announced, “When y’all get it figured out, let me know and I'll vote whichever way you want me to.” The five remaining jurors then began to discuss the case. They were just before acquitting my client because his victim hadn’t been invited to the party when Lane spoke up. “Whether he was invited to the party or not, that doesn’t give the defendant a right to beat him up.” She single-handedly talked the other four jurors into voting guilty. The non-participant said he’d vote guilty, too, and the case was over.
I’m not certain of this, but I’d be willing to bet that I have the distinction of being the only lawyer in America today who had his wife on the jury of a case he defended AND whose wife talked the jury into convicting his client.
 
 

Sunday, July 14, 2013

REFLECTIONS ON THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT

I turned off my cellphone this morning because I was busy doing some investigation and research on a pressing legal issue. After attending to that chore, I turned my cellphone back on and saw several messages from various news agencies wanting a comment on the Zimmerman verdict. Of course, by the time I saw the messages, the agencies had gotten their comments from other sources. It's just as well, because I have little to say about the verdict that I didn't say in my previous post while the jury was still out. I do have a comment or two, though.

Nobody should be upset that Zimmerman got acquitted. Our court system recognizes that we live in an imperfect world and we can seldom do perfect justice. Since fallible humans are prone to error, we designed our justice system to insure (as much as humanly possible) that when those errors are made, they will be to acquit the guilty rather than convict the innocent. I have seen many patently guilty people freed by juries because they believed they had a reasonable doubt. It is certainly disappointing, and I still occasionally feel anguish about some cases where juries acquitted evil men who had committed horrific crimes. But that's the nature of our criminal justice system, and any innocent person charged with a crime has reason to be glad the system is set up that way.

Because of how the system is set up, we can not say that the Zimmerman verdict was the product of prejudice--nor can we say the verdict proves Zimmerman innocent. We can say that the jury seems to have thoroughly studied the evidence, and we can say that they appear to have carefully weighed the law and the evidence. They asked for clarification of the manslaughter instruction and were told to ask a specific question. If normal procedures were followed, they had a copy of the instructions in the jury room with them and to read and try to interpret. Rather than asking a specific question, they worked on through to their verdict. This is not unusual. I have seen it happen many times.

They did their best, they came back with a verdict. We can ask no more of them and we should not attribute ill will to them. I do not care to elaborate, but I have seen verdicts returned which I sincerely believed were motivated by malice. In my experience, these malice-motivated verdicts are returned quickly. The length of deliberations, the apparent careful attention to the exhibits, and the request for clarification of the manslaughter instruction all indicate that the jury was trying to do the right thing. If you are a Zimmerman fan, you will think they did the right thing. If you're no Zimmerman fan, you have a right to think they made a mistake. There is, however, no evidence that they acted from any motivation other than the desire to try to do the right thing.