Jury Duty, part 2 - the trial

(continued from part 1)

     After all- and I do mean all- of the applicable laws and considerations had been read to us by the judge, we finally got down to the actual trial. Since the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that a crime had, indeed, been committed (remember that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?), they got to go first. The prosecuting lawyer stood at the podium and, in his best "I am a responsible member of society" voice, explained the police's side of the story. Here's a brief overview.

     On a particular day, the Informant came into the police station and said he was scared, because his roommates were planning a robbery, and had asked him to be the getaway driver. The cops took his statement, and then convinced him to go back to the apartment with a wire to see if they could get actual evidence instead of just hearsay. The guy agreed, the cops listened in, and when, 52 minutes later (and yes, I know it to be 52 minutes, we'll get to that), the Informant, the Defendant, and other conspirators came downstairs and got into a car to go commit the robbery, the SWAT team came in and arrested them all. 

     Now, I know it seems a little messy at first, because no actual crime was committed, but bear with me. One of the (many) instructions we had to listen to was an exact breakdown of what the charge- Conspiracy to Commit a Crime- was. 

1. A person commits conspiracy to commit a crime if, with the intent to promote or facilitate its commission, he agrees with another person or persons that they, or one or more of them, will engage in conduct which constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime, or he agrees to aid the other person or persons in the planning or commission of a crime or of an attempt to commit such crime.
2. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime, unless an overt act in pursuance of that conspiracy is proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired. [Emphasis added]

So the most important parts there that the prosecution had to prove are that the Defendant 1) intended to commit or help commit a crime, and 2) made an overt act to carry it out. Keep that in the back of your mind, along with the whole "reasonable doubt" concept from the last post.

     The prosecution called a number of witnesses, including the cops who took the Informant's statement, fitted him with a wire, and listened in. The SWAT team couldn't make it, but the Informant was able to take the stand, and, as horrible as it may be, I had to chuckle. The guy was every single stereotype of a scared stool pigeon that you have ever seen. He was scrawny, dressed in clothes that were a little too big for him, had a scraggly mustache, sat kinda hunched over, and was not very confident with his words. I realize that sitting in a court, having a buddy that you snitched on glaring at you is probably not a comfortable situation, but still. I smiled to myself, and then listened to what he had to say.

/pat on the head. Yes, dear.

     Once all the witnesses had been called and cross-examined by the Defendant's lawyer, however, we got to the evidence. The first piece- the recording from the wire- was presented when the Informant was still on the stand. The sound quality wasn't all that great, but it was understandable, and once again, I had to laugh (quietly). The first thing we heard was the Informant checking to make sure the wire worked, then walking inside. Once he got in to where the other were, it was... bad. He did everything shy of holding his clothing out to people to get a better sound; he pressed the issue, kept prying for more info, went to each person in turn and asked what was going to  happen, and then (I honestly had to cover my mouth at this point), even suggested they have a huddle to discuss the plan. 

     I don't know about you, but if anyone, ever, acted like that around me, I'd stop what I was doing, strip them naked, and kick them out the door. But whatever, to each their own. After a while, he settled down, stopped asking questions, and started listening. And that's when things got interesting. You could clearly hear instructions being given by other people, to other people, about what to do, how to dress, how to act, who the target was, etc etc. There was a section where the others sent the Informant to get a Sharpie to color the orange tips of air pistols (think bb guns) in order to make them look like real guns. In another part, they asked him for pieces of clothing and gloves to cover themselves up with. Finally, they agreed they were ready, and you heard them walk out the door and get in the car, and there it ended. 

     I've spared you the belches, swearing, pathetic attempts at fitting in, random talk about video games, alcohol, and cigarettes, but that's the basic gist of the recording. The Informant was dismissed, and we were shown the air guns in question (which were incredibly realistic), and various articles of clothing taken from the car after arrests were made. Interestingly, the Defendant himself never took the stand, but since his attorney had made a point of asking during jury selection if people felt that to be a sign of guilt, I kind of expected it. 

     The Defendant's lawyer instead built his case on the fact that the Informant appeared to be leading the alleged conspirators, egging them on, and keeping the issue in active conversation. Would they all have acted on their thoughts if he'd not been there, if it had been brought up as an interesting topic, and then dropped in order to watch a game on the tv? Where the prosecuting attorney put on the outraged member of society act, the defense went with the "Ho, ho, ho, we're all just buddy pals here, talking trash and being harmless until the Informant pushed us into it" point of view. An interesting take, though I wasn't terribly convinced that the Informant had enough willpower to make a kid eat candy, but there it is. 

     By that time, it was 4:30, and the judge decided that there wouldn't be enough time to make closing statements, much less allow the jury deliberation time, so he sent us home, with a strict injunction to not talk to anybody about the case, no matter what. Be back tomorrow at 9am, and we'll finish this up. I went home, sent various emails to inform work and my internship that I wouldn't be in the next day, either, did some homework, and went to bed. 

     The next day, after we all checked in, got settled, and had a couple reminder laws read at us again, the final statements were made. Interestingly, both sides ended with "I hope that you do the right thing, and realize that justice must be upheld" to summarize their (drastically different) appeals for a verdict. I suppose it wouldn't reflect well to end with either "Let him rot in jail, bwahahahaha!" or "Show those corrupt institutions that innocence will not be trampled on!" or something to that effect, but still, I found it to be interesting. By that time, it was about 10:30, and we adjourned for deliberations. Before we got too settled into our little tiny room, the Clerk of the Court came and got lunch orders from us. it was just from the little cafeteria in the courthouse, but I still felt that was a nice touch: sandwiches, cookies, chips, and a drink for each of us, to be delivered around noon. She left, we got down to business, and the real fun started. 

[I completely did not realize that this was going to be so lengthy. Since the next part is at least as long again as this post, I'm breaking it into another entry. Rather than make you wait a week, though, part 3 will be posted on Wednesday. See you then!]