Jury Duty, part 3 - deliberation and verdict

(continued from part 1 and 2)

     The first thing that we were told to do was choose a foreperson. The door had barely closed behind the Clerk when one woman stuck her nose up in the air and declared "I want to be the foreperson!" The rest of us kind of looked around and shrugged, because we didn't really care, but it wasn't really the best of starts. Continuing in her attempts to make herself unpopular, said woman (whom we'll call Patty- I have no clue what her real name is) declared, "Well, why don't we start out with a preliminary vote, just to see where everyone is?" Again, the rest of us shrugged and nodded. Patty asked, "All those who think he's guilty?"... and eleven of us raised our hands. She looked around at all of us, sniffed, and  said, "Well, I don't, and my parents taught me never to give in just because of what other people think, so this is going to be an interesting day, isn't it?" Ugh. 

     With twelve people in a room, there are obviously going to be overlapping conversations, so I won't even attempt to try to report everything that happened, or exactly who said what, other than me and Patty. I'd already decided I didn't like her, so I shut up for a good long while. In the mean time, following a moment of stunned silence at her declaration of whatever, here's a really, really rough outline of the main points:

Juror: Ok, well, what makes you think he's innocent?

Patty: The only time I actually heard (Defendant) talk on the tape was when (Informant) asked him "Are we really going to do this?” and (Defendant) said “Yup.” That could have been anything; he could have been pointing at a shot glass, or a cigarette, or a game, whatever! It’s not conclusive proof. They weren’t even in the same room as the other people when he asked that!

Juror: Valid point, but (Defendant) still got dressed up and got into the car with everyone.

Patty: That doesn’t mean anything, he might have been wanting to go to McDonald’s, and just figured he’d get a ride on the way. [This is verbatim, because I was so floored by the stupidity of the statement that I remembered it.]

Juror: Really? You really think so? Would you get into a car, dressed in black, carrying a gun that had been modded to look like a real gun, with a mask over your face and gloves on your hands, with people who you knew were planning on committing a crime… just to go to McDonald’s?

Patty: Maybe… I’m just saying, it’s not conclusive evidence.

Juror: What about if we went back and listened to the recording again? I wasn’t 100% sure who was talking, when, and to whom. It might be worth a listen.

     We all pretty much agreed that that would be beneficial, since the first time through hadn't been terribly clear, and we'd listened to it a day ago. We called the Clerk, and were told of course we could listen to it... But only a) in the courtroom, b) in front of the Clerk, c) thereby prohibiting us from discussing it while it was playing (no one can listen to deliberations), and d) we had to listen to it all the way through, no pausing, rewinding, or fast forwarding. What fun. 

     So we sat there in silence, miming, making gestures and faces at each other while we listened to the entire 52 minutes again, complete with belches, swearing, transparent attempts at digging for information, and all. Why do I know it was 52 minutes? Because we got in the courtroom at 11:40, and I didn't get my lunch until 12:32. Grumble grumble. It was helpful to listen, however, because we could hear voices more distinctly, and separate out who was saying what. This time, we could hear that (Defendant) was the one who colored the guns with Sharpie, he asked for gloves so he wouldn't leave fingerprints, and a couple other rather obvious messages that showed he knew exactly what was going on. Amusingly, there were a few times when the others told the Informant, "we're not telling you details cause you'll probably mess it up. Just sit in the car and drive." If only you knew...

     Returning to the deliberation room, we took a few minutes to distribute food and eat, then got back down to business. Patty, once again, announced that she wasn't convinced, because you couldn't tell that it was the Defendant speaking in the same room as everyone else, he might have been having side conversations with other people. We all just looked at each other in a mix of "what is wrong with this person" and "wow, can you really be that dense," but since we didn't want to be stuck there for another day, dealing with this crazy chick, we started trying to figure out what to do.

     The first attempt we made was to go over the conversations again. We'd all written down important parts, and we went over them to make sure she'd heard them. Do you agree he was in the room when they were discussing it? Yes. Do you agree that, since they were all talking about it, there's really nothing else he could have considered going on? She supposed so. Do you agree that it's incredibly unlikely, when we can hear him asking for clothes to conceal himself, that he was getting dressed up to go to church? Ok. Do you agree that he did, in fact, after all of that, get in the car? Yes. Ok.... so why do you still think he's innocent?

"Because he didn't actually commit the crime."

     At this point, I actually spoke up, because it was either that or strangle the woman, and I'm pretty sure that assault and battery in a courthouse is not a good idea. 

Me: Ok, hang on. Do you know what it is that he’s actually accused of?

Patty: Committing a crime, right?

Me: /facepalm. No. Could you do me a favor and pull out the sheet in your juror book that goes over what the charge is?

(Everyone pulls out that sheet.)

Me: Does anyone object to us going over each point and figuring out where the hangup is?

(No one does.)

Patty: I’m feeling a little on the spot here.

Juror: That’s because you are. We could have been home by now if not for you.

Juror: Ok, point 1- “willingly and knowingly.” Can we all agree that he knew what was going on?

(Everyone, even Patty, votes yes.)

Juror: Point 2- “attempt to commit a crime.” Do we agree that what was being planned was, actually, a crime? I.e. robbery?

(Everyone, including Patty, votes yes.)

Juror: Point 3- “took an overt act in pursuance of that conspiracy.” Does everyone agree that any of his acts- coloring in the ends of the gun to make it look real, dressing up in all black and covering his face and hands, or getting in the car with other people that he knew were intending to commit a crime- any single one of these acts could be construed as wanting to carry out that conspiracy?

(Surprisingly, everyone, including Patty, votes yes.)

Me: So, if you agree to all three salient parts of the accusation, why are you still of the opinion that he’s innocent?

Patty: Well, because, he didn’t actually commit a crime!

Me: That’s irrelevant. If you agree that all three parts of the actual law that he has been accused of breaking are applicable, then the entire law is applicable, and he is guilty of this law, not whatever you think he ought to be accused of. Right?

Patty: … Right… But it’s still possible that he could have just been going along for the ride or something, I’m not 100% convinced!

Juror: Lady, do we really need to go back over what “reasonable doubt” is, too? Were you even listening to the judge? Criminal cases aren’t 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you saw a guy coming up to you, dressed all in black with a mask over his face and what looked like a real gun in his hands, would you think, “Oh, he’s probably just going to McDonald’s?!”

Patty: Well… no, probably not.

Juror: That is what reasonable doubt is! You have agreed that what he did meets all the criteria of the law. You have agreed that you have no reasonable doubt about his actions and intent, so as far as I’m concerned, you agree that he is guilty. Am I wrong?

Patty: Ugh! Fine! If you guys really think that that is an acceptable law to accuse someone of, then yes, fine, I agree he did and intended all those things. But he still never committed a real crime, so I am not going to sign [the sheet that delivers the verdict to the judge- must be signed by the foreperson.]!

Juror: It’s not our job to determine if the law is right or wrong; it’s just our job to determine if it’s been broken. If you felt the law was unjust, you should have spoken up during jury selection, or when the trial started, rather than wasting all of our time.

Me: Well, unless anyone objects to me taking over as foreperson, I’ll sign the piece of paper and tell them that we’re ready.

(No one objects, Patty is sulking in the corner. I sign the sheet under the verdict of “Guilty,” and call the Clerk to let her know we’re ready.)

     We file back into the courtroom, and the judge asks me to hand over the paper. He reads it, then says he has to poll each juror and receive a verbal answer to ensure that there was no duress in the verdict. I won't lie, I was staring at the back of Patty's head through the entire process (she was sitting directly in front of me), and am not 100% sure what I would have done if she had pulled something. Luckily, she gave her agreement, sounding only slightly sulky, and we all filed back into the deliberation room to get our stuff, clean up, and head home. The judge visited us briefly, and it turned out the reason the Defendant didn't take the stand is because he had a prior felony on his record, and the attorney was worried that would damage his case. We asked what would happen next, and the judge said that, in our county at least, there are options for education, rehabilitation programs, and that sort of thing as opposed to just jail time, so I kinda do hope the guy gets a chance to make his life better.

     Patty all but ran out the door, as soon as we were let go, and the rest of us followed. Once the verdict was given, we were told we could discuss it with whomever we wanted, and I somehow managed to run into the defense attorney on the way to my car. He asked what made us choose that verdict, and I told him that the recording was pretty solid evidence. He nodded, not happy, but accepting, and walked off. I waved goodbye to a couple of the jurors with whom I'd had decent conversations, and headed home, glad it was all finally over.

     So really, overall, jury duty isn't that bad, especially if you know what to expect. I'm glad I went; it was a good experience, and I know I'm grateful to be in a country that adheres to trial by jury and innocent until proven guilty... I've seen the results of countries that don't, and no thanks. Cheers!