joffer
Footballguy
Hello All,
Lots of lawyers whose opinion I respect on this board, so I thought I’d recount my first experience with jury duty. It seemed like an interesting case, and I’m having a bit of conflict with the outcome. Sorry for the length. If it’s not your thing, I’d bow out now.
Charge was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (AAwDW), with a lesser simple assault charge included. In short, a homeless person was charged with stabbing a drug dealer. If anyone in Austin is familiar with the Arch downtown, it’s a homeless shelter, and many people live on the street in front of it. This crime was captured on video because Austin has cameras all over downtown.
Prosecution’s opening was simple. We’ll show you the video. we’ll show you the knife used. You’ll hear from the cops, an eye witness, etc. Open and shut. The defense, through jury voir dire and opening statements, made it clear they would be arguing self-defense. Basically they said that the victim ran a drug dealing ring to homeless people at the arch and had beaten, terrorized, and threatened the defendant on many occasions and she acted in self defense.
Prosecution calls five witnesses. 1. Policeman running the video system, 2. Arresting officer, 3. Investigating detective, 4. Victim, 5. Witness to stabbing who was homeless and living outside the arch. They show the video, it’s pretty clear the claim of self-defense is no good. There is no immediate danger. The homeless defendant walked a block and a half, right up to the victim, and you see a stabbing motion to the victim’s back. Pictures of the wound at the hospital show something that could be made with a knife, but could be something else too. Can’t make out a weapon from the video. Eye witness (#5 above) testifies that he wrestled a knife out of the defendant’s hand, and then “tossed it”. He is mildly credible. He was currently in jail (not told for what), took the 5th on some questions, but described a knife in some detail, and his recount matches the video fairly well.
At this point state tries to introduce a knife into evidence. Jury is asked to clear courtroom. When we come back, its obvious the knife has been suppressed. My guess was they did not have a clear chain of evidence after the knife was “tossed”, so no knife into evidence. State calls the victim. She’s also in jail pending drug charges and it’s pretty clear she’s not there willingly. Pleads the 5th on a lot of questions. Her credibility is essentially zero. Defense easily catches her in several lies. Basically she’s a POS. Testifies that she’s sure she was stabbed and that’s about it. State rests.
At this point, pretty much everyone is expecting to hear the defense call some witnesses to support self-defense, but the defense rests without calling a witness. We retire for deliberations, and most of us are a little confused what just happened. Why didn’t they mount a defense? Everyone agrees self-defense is a non-starter. It’s late in the day so we adjourn and agree to come back in the morning. Overnight I come to the conclusion that the defense doesn't think the state proved it's case, so I think about the knife and it not being admitted. I'm guessing they scrapped the self-defense and bet on us only convicting on simple assault.
Morning arrives. I get to the jury room a little early and I’m carefully reading the “Charge of the Court”. Basically it’s a summary of the charge, applicable law, and jury instructions about presumption of innocence, deliberations, etc. I’m reading a listing of all of the elements of the top charge, and thinking that yes they proved all of this beyond a reasonable doubt (BaRD). Then there’s a paragraph that states (paraphrasing): “Given the above, do you all agree that the prosecution has proven on this date..blah.blah..this person..blah blah committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a knife. That she did intentionally and wrecklessly..blah.blah..stab the victim in the back with a knife. If not, you must find the defendant not guilty and move onto the charge of assault.”
It was the first time I’d read it and thought to myself: “No, they didn’t prove it was a knife to me BaRD”. Everyone arrives and we vote. 10 to 2 to convict on AAwDW. I’m one of the 2. When it gets around to me I point out the paragraph and several of the jurors are a little surprised of the language. I argue it seems like we have to conclude BaRD it was a knife based on these instructions. Basically I say if the word “knife” wasn’t in that paragraph twice, I’d vote guilty, but it is and I’m not sure we can ignore it. One other person agrees and it’s now 9 to 3. The other two on my side seem to be following me for some reason.
I say this: “Look, I agree she committed this crime based on the law, but I can’t answer ‘yes’ based on this paragraph, so you guys either need to convince me that a) they proved it was a knife BaRD, or b) I can ignore the paragraph in question”. A) seems more likely, so we spend the next 2 hours deliberating (overall pretty cordial and respective). We review the video in detail. I’m still not convinced it’s a knife. There’s just not clear video evidence. It begins to get a little heated (people want to go home). We request clarification from the judge on that paragraph. Answer comes back: “You have been provided all the applicable laws. Please keep deliberating”. I didn't see any help there, but majority argues that judge is trying to tell us to focus just on the applicable law and the paragraph in question is not critical. The majority argues that proving it was a knife is not one of the elements of AAwDW, that it could be shiv or anything sharp. I agree, but again I’m having trouble getting past that paragraph. We request to hear eyewitness #5 testimony again about it being a knife, but it’s just like I remember. It’s mildly credible, but disjointed and not very convincing. Another vote, 11 to 1. I’m the only holdout. It gets even more heated. I’m ignoring the law. I’m too sympathetic to the defendant, I’m being too literal, etc. I think I kept my cool well enough but it’s getting uncomfortable.
At this point, it’s either guilty or a hung jury, as at least 6 jurors state they aren’t going to change their mind. A few state that they agree with me that a knife has not been proven BaRD, but it doesn’t matter to them. So I contemplate:
1. I think she intended to commit this crime and committed it as described in the law, and hanging my hat on the inclusion of the word knife twice in the AAwDW summary paragraph (for lack of a better term) might not be the best hill to die on. And while I don't see evidence of a knife BaRD, I think it's likely it was a knife.
2. Digging my heels in on what I perceived at the time might be a technicality might not be in the interests of justice. When a serial killer walks on a technicality on tv I’m always enraged. It’s ironic that in this case the opposite is happening with a POS victim and a more sympathetic defendant, but that shouldn’t affect my decision.
I caved. 12-0 guilty. After the verdict the judge and lawyers come back and we are allowed to ask questions (didn’t know they did this) and of course my hand goes up first. “Based on this paragraph, were we required to find BaRD that the defendant used a knife?”. Answer: “Yes”. The Charge of the Court hasn’t changed since the grand jury, when the DA was sure they would be admitting a knife. I mumble an expletive to myself and no one looks at me. I get up and leave.
I’m conflicted. If anyone is still reading I’d be interested in hearing any opinions. Was I just being a PITA? Am I a bleeding heart? Should I have hung the jury? I don’t think we convicted an innocent person, but it doesn’t feel right. Thanks for listening, it felt good to type this out.
Lots of lawyers whose opinion I respect on this board, so I thought I’d recount my first experience with jury duty. It seemed like an interesting case, and I’m having a bit of conflict with the outcome. Sorry for the length. If it’s not your thing, I’d bow out now.
Charge was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (AAwDW), with a lesser simple assault charge included. In short, a homeless person was charged with stabbing a drug dealer. If anyone in Austin is familiar with the Arch downtown, it’s a homeless shelter, and many people live on the street in front of it. This crime was captured on video because Austin has cameras all over downtown.
Prosecution’s opening was simple. We’ll show you the video. we’ll show you the knife used. You’ll hear from the cops, an eye witness, etc. Open and shut. The defense, through jury voir dire and opening statements, made it clear they would be arguing self-defense. Basically they said that the victim ran a drug dealing ring to homeless people at the arch and had beaten, terrorized, and threatened the defendant on many occasions and she acted in self defense.
Prosecution calls five witnesses. 1. Policeman running the video system, 2. Arresting officer, 3. Investigating detective, 4. Victim, 5. Witness to stabbing who was homeless and living outside the arch. They show the video, it’s pretty clear the claim of self-defense is no good. There is no immediate danger. The homeless defendant walked a block and a half, right up to the victim, and you see a stabbing motion to the victim’s back. Pictures of the wound at the hospital show something that could be made with a knife, but could be something else too. Can’t make out a weapon from the video. Eye witness (#5 above) testifies that he wrestled a knife out of the defendant’s hand, and then “tossed it”. He is mildly credible. He was currently in jail (not told for what), took the 5th on some questions, but described a knife in some detail, and his recount matches the video fairly well.
At this point state tries to introduce a knife into evidence. Jury is asked to clear courtroom. When we come back, its obvious the knife has been suppressed. My guess was they did not have a clear chain of evidence after the knife was “tossed”, so no knife into evidence. State calls the victim. She’s also in jail pending drug charges and it’s pretty clear she’s not there willingly. Pleads the 5th on a lot of questions. Her credibility is essentially zero. Defense easily catches her in several lies. Basically she’s a POS. Testifies that she’s sure she was stabbed and that’s about it. State rests.
At this point, pretty much everyone is expecting to hear the defense call some witnesses to support self-defense, but the defense rests without calling a witness. We retire for deliberations, and most of us are a little confused what just happened. Why didn’t they mount a defense? Everyone agrees self-defense is a non-starter. It’s late in the day so we adjourn and agree to come back in the morning. Overnight I come to the conclusion that the defense doesn't think the state proved it's case, so I think about the knife and it not being admitted. I'm guessing they scrapped the self-defense and bet on us only convicting on simple assault.
Morning arrives. I get to the jury room a little early and I’m carefully reading the “Charge of the Court”. Basically it’s a summary of the charge, applicable law, and jury instructions about presumption of innocence, deliberations, etc. I’m reading a listing of all of the elements of the top charge, and thinking that yes they proved all of this beyond a reasonable doubt (BaRD). Then there’s a paragraph that states (paraphrasing): “Given the above, do you all agree that the prosecution has proven on this date..blah.blah..this person..blah blah committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a knife. That she did intentionally and wrecklessly..blah.blah..stab the victim in the back with a knife. If not, you must find the defendant not guilty and move onto the charge of assault.”
It was the first time I’d read it and thought to myself: “No, they didn’t prove it was a knife to me BaRD”. Everyone arrives and we vote. 10 to 2 to convict on AAwDW. I’m one of the 2. When it gets around to me I point out the paragraph and several of the jurors are a little surprised of the language. I argue it seems like we have to conclude BaRD it was a knife based on these instructions. Basically I say if the word “knife” wasn’t in that paragraph twice, I’d vote guilty, but it is and I’m not sure we can ignore it. One other person agrees and it’s now 9 to 3. The other two on my side seem to be following me for some reason.
I say this: “Look, I agree she committed this crime based on the law, but I can’t answer ‘yes’ based on this paragraph, so you guys either need to convince me that a) they proved it was a knife BaRD, or b) I can ignore the paragraph in question”. A) seems more likely, so we spend the next 2 hours deliberating (overall pretty cordial and respective). We review the video in detail. I’m still not convinced it’s a knife. There’s just not clear video evidence. It begins to get a little heated (people want to go home). We request clarification from the judge on that paragraph. Answer comes back: “You have been provided all the applicable laws. Please keep deliberating”. I didn't see any help there, but majority argues that judge is trying to tell us to focus just on the applicable law and the paragraph in question is not critical. The majority argues that proving it was a knife is not one of the elements of AAwDW, that it could be shiv or anything sharp. I agree, but again I’m having trouble getting past that paragraph. We request to hear eyewitness #5 testimony again about it being a knife, but it’s just like I remember. It’s mildly credible, but disjointed and not very convincing. Another vote, 11 to 1. I’m the only holdout. It gets even more heated. I’m ignoring the law. I’m too sympathetic to the defendant, I’m being too literal, etc. I think I kept my cool well enough but it’s getting uncomfortable.
At this point, it’s either guilty or a hung jury, as at least 6 jurors state they aren’t going to change their mind. A few state that they agree with me that a knife has not been proven BaRD, but it doesn’t matter to them. So I contemplate:
1. I think she intended to commit this crime and committed it as described in the law, and hanging my hat on the inclusion of the word knife twice in the AAwDW summary paragraph (for lack of a better term) might not be the best hill to die on. And while I don't see evidence of a knife BaRD, I think it's likely it was a knife.
2. Digging my heels in on what I perceived at the time might be a technicality might not be in the interests of justice. When a serial killer walks on a technicality on tv I’m always enraged. It’s ironic that in this case the opposite is happening with a POS victim and a more sympathetic defendant, but that shouldn’t affect my decision.
I caved. 12-0 guilty. After the verdict the judge and lawyers come back and we are allowed to ask questions (didn’t know they did this) and of course my hand goes up first. “Based on this paragraph, were we required to find BaRD that the defendant used a knife?”. Answer: “Yes”. The Charge of the Court hasn’t changed since the grand jury, when the DA was sure they would be admitting a knife. I mumble an expletive to myself and no one looks at me. I get up and leave.
I’m conflicted. If anyone is still reading I’d be interested in hearing any opinions. Was I just being a PITA? Am I a bleeding heart? Should I have hung the jury? I don’t think we convicted an innocent person, but it doesn’t feel right. Thanks for listening, it felt good to type this out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good for the OP for taking this seriously- kudos to him for trying to follow the law instead of common sense... and I mean that. I honestly don't know what I would've done here- probably exactly what he did, although I may not have even noticed the particular point about the knife in the first place. I'm somebody the believes in the jury process- serving if called (not trying to get out of it)- and approaching it as seriously as possible. one of the only requirements of living in the US- and a far bit better than paying taxes (unless you're rich).
