I received a jury summons weeks ago and honestly was a bit excited to possibly be a member of a jury. I had only seen juries on TV and movies, and it always seemed juries were made up of people entirely too dumb to actually determine a true verdict (think OJ Simpson trial). I always figured the smart people found ways out of jury duty, so when my opportunity came I was actually a bit excited to provide “intelligence” to a jury panel. I didn’t WANT to spend my time on a jury but I figured I wouldn’t try to fight it too much.
I showed up in the morning and waited for my number to be called. It didn’t take too long as 30 of us got pooled and headed up into a courtroom to start the jury selection process. This is where most people actively try to get out of jury duty. People were raising their hands for every excuse mentioned. “Who here knows the judge?, Who knows the defendant?, Who can’t see well?, Who can’t hear well?, Who holds any preconceived biases either for or against a defendant, the police, this court or the State of Florida?” One woman raised her hand to each of those. She knew the judge (her son was sworn in as a lawyer by him, she thinks), she knew the defendant (she thought he looked familiar), she had bad eye sight and hearing (but never missed a question to identify someone she knew in court), and fostered biased feelings (although she assured the judge she would put them aside if selected as a juror). One guy said he was in a similar incident as the victim in this case and said his “heart was racing just thinking about the allegations of the crime”. In the end, the people smart enough to get out of jury duty did, those too lazy to simply raise their hand to get out didn’t and were selected, and those who secretly wanted to be selected did. Six of us were selected and so commenced the two day ordeal.
The prosecution and defense attorneys argued liked cats and dogs (although I have never seen a cat and a dog argue). They argued over anything and everything. Objection!, leading. Objection!, witness already answered. Objection!, not fair. Yeah, I heard that one. I’ve never heard “objection, not fair” before on TV, but as most lawyers will tell you TV is NOTHING like reality. When a simple objection would take too long to argue, the jury would be sent into another room and let the lawyers fight over the issue. I guess the judge finally decided what was fair.
The case was “assault with a firearm”. And in the end the state had to prove 4 things: Did the defendant threaten the victim, did the defendant have the means to enact that threat, did the defendant create fear in the victim, and did the defendant possess a firearm. The interesting part of this was that the video surveillance showed almost the entire thing. Between all the cameras in the store only 12 seconds of the incident were not captured. It was in that 12 seconds (so argued the state) that the assault with a firearm happened. The defense’s case boiled down to this, only one person actually saw the crime happen and that was the victim and his recollection of the events were often foggy and even inconsistent to what was shown on to have happened on the video tape. The video only showed the defendant try to buy something at a register, store security being called, the defendant walk out of the store and the store security follow him to the door. It never showed the defendant display a gun, nor did any of the witnesses even see a gun or heard a threat, except the store security.
The state showed that the defendant tried to fraudulently buy $400 of gift cards at two registers on opposite sides of the store, the defendant leaving his gift card at the register and walk out the door. Their case boiled down to this, without any hard evidence one way or another, what was a reasonable assumption to what happened in the 12 second gap? What did common sense say happened in that video gap? Why would the security guard lie about being threatened?
Each time one side would call a witness or cross examine I would feel myself being swayed in towards the other side. The case was not clearly guilty or not guilty. It was a constant back and forth and in the end I found myself praying for the wisdom to weed though the back and forth and rest easy on a conclusion. In the end there was no clear answer. All the six of us had to go on was this loose understanding of “reasonable doubt”. Had the state demonstrated guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or did the defense create enough confusion or doubt in our minds.
In the end, the six of us had to discuss things for a while. It started off with a 4-2 vote but slowly the two started becoming more confident in their opinion. In the end, we all agreed that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; not fully a confirmed doubt, but more than a possible doubt. In the end, we all agreed to render the defendant guilty and leave his sentencing up to the judge. In the end, none of us felt good about our decision. In the end, I was left feeling really sad for the kid and his family. When the verdict was read I looked over at him and watched his world come tumbling down. I don’t regret my vote, and I’m not saddened by justice being done. I realize actions have consequences (believe me, I get that), but I was just saddened by being personally involved in determining the consequences of this kid’s actions. Last Friday the defendant woke up and probably thought he was going home that day a free man. He was probably hopeful that the agony of his past 10 months would soon be over. But right before 6pm, his world was rocked. I watched the look on his face as surprise set in and he realized he wasn’t going home for a while. He would probably be sentenced today and I don’t want to look up to see what he was sentenced to. I don’t want to know the outcome; I’m still saddened by the situation. I'm sad that on Jan 21st this kid thought it would be a good idea to scam $400 in gift cards from the Home Depot. I'm sad that he had the ordeal planned out to include carrying a pistol. I'm sad that he had a getaway car and driver staged outside waiting for him. I'm sad that I was a part of the justice process that will be sending this kid to jail. Again, don’t get me wrong. Justice is needed. Justice is right and noble and without it anarchy and chaos would ensue. I'm not upset that a victim got justice against the person who violated them, I’m just sad that instead of hearing about this story on the news; I was personally involved in the outcome. I wouldn’t change my vote or my discussion to persuade the other jurors because I honestly feel like the kid was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy about the outcome either.
