The Chronicles Of Jessica

Read Part I here

Our judge handled some things differently than other judges do, according to the other jurors who had served before. For instance, he allowed the jurors to submit questions to each witness, written on slips of paper that he would then review and choose whether or not to pose the questions to each witness, after consulting with counsel. If something was unclear or you needed clarification you could submit a question about it and as long as it was in line with the testimony or whatever, the judge would allow it. Not all the questions did get asked, in fact most of them didn't, I don't think, unless maybe a lot of us asked questions that were kind of the same. Of course it was anonymous so we have no idea who asked what. Then this one guy, juror number 8, got really really weird about it. I think he took it personally that the judge never asked any of his questions, because by about the 7th witness he actually stood up when turning in his slip and said loudly and sternly, "I expect to have these questions answered!"

What is the matter with people? I mean, seriously? To stand up in a court of law and, like, demand something from the judge like that? Was the man on something? I couldn't believe it. This guy was really really strange anyway; I kept hoping he would have a real freak out and get dismissed. When we weren't in the actual courtroom he was always either eating or sleeping. He had these padded envelopes with all this food in them, like ham sandwiches and convenience store fruit pies and stuff, and he would just munch away all the time. So it stands to reason that his questions were probably totally bizarre and irrelevant. He probably wrote stuff like, "Ask him where he got that jacket" and "Is the witness allergic to wheat?" "I will have answers!!!!"

The judge took it in stride. He said mildly, "Sir...?" and that was pretty much it. It's amazing how much economy judges can get out of so few words. All he said was "sir" but the implied meaning was, "Don't be a dipshit. There are 5 guys in here with tazers who work for me and can drop your troublemaking snack ass at the snap of my fingers. Sit yourself down so I can dispense some 'effin justice."

Anyway. Finally the government presented their star witness: A convicted PCP dealer! Ta daaaa! He is in fact still in custody; they had to bring him in from prison for the day to do his testimony. So this guy claimed that he witnessed the shooting (and recognized the gun) from a decent distance, late at night, after he had slipped behind a row of houses to retrieve his stash of pcp. Like you do! But it was all pretty...muddled. Like, in the grand jury he said he saw the victim go down to the ground, then in the courtroom he said he didn't. (The victim was actually found a few yards from where the dealer would have been able to see him, and according to the medical examiner, it would have taken a few minutes for him to expire, leaving him time enough to stagger a few yards away.) And of course, the defense made much of the fact that the dealer had been questioned about this murder on two other occasions and claimed not to know anything about it both times. It was only after he was brought in for parole violations ("I don't know, I guess I was just doing wrong") that he offered up the information, hoping for some leniency from the parole board, presumably.

I couldn't decide if I believed him or not, really. It seemed just as likely that he might have heard the information somewhere and then repeated it, as opposed to actually having been there. He couldn't actually give any specifics on what anyone was wearing, what size guy the victim was (he was pretty tall), or much of anything else. I kept waiting for them to introduce some other evidence but they apparently just didn't have any. They never found a gun, they had no shell casings, no fingerprints, no nothing. One weird thing was that they found some hair braids, like extensions, in the area, and they introduced those into evidence and went to all this trouble to have them there, then later on they stipulated that the braids had belonged to a woman and no dna evidence was found that connected the braids to the defendants. I didn't get that at all. "We found this and it has nothing to do with anything but we're showing it to you anyway." It's a murder trial, not show and tell! Are you going to be bringing in gum wrappers and stray kittens next? Focus, focus!

In case it's not obvious at this point, my whole impression of the government's case was that it was pretty weak. In a way I was surprised they even had enough to bring it to trial. On Law and Order (yes I know it's the fifth time I mentioned it but it's my only frame of reference!) the DA is always telling them the case is too weak to stick and they can't bring it to trial if they don't have enough evidence. These guys were basically trying the whole case on the testimony of this one eyewitness, and he was no Wally Cleaver, let me assure you. If you didn't believe him then you had nothing else to really go on.

Well, finally they wrapped up all the testimony. The defendants didn't testify on their own behalf, but we were instructed at the beginning not to hold that against them. Personally, if I was accused of a murder I didn't commit, I would insist on testifying, but this is what's sort of interesting - the defense didn't really put forth the idea that their guys didn't do it. Their defense was more - well, it was dark, this guy couldn't really see, there's no other evidence, it was three years ago, etc. etc. They didn't present an alibi or any character witnesses at all. I guess all they have to do technically is refute the evidence that's put out there; they don't really have to go any further than that, as long as they can create reasonable doubt. But it certainly didn't give you the strong impression that these fellows had been wrongly accused and they were actually reading to the blind after the completion of their weekly Meals-On-Wheels route at the time the murder took place.

Having said that, the defense attorneys did their best with what they had. Defendant # 2's attorney was actually really spirited; he sort of woke up the whole courtroom every time it was his turn. He was an older guy with a white beard, he reminded me a little of Santa. If Santa had like a younger brother with a slightly faster metabolism who went to law school. (At one point during his closing statement he actually got so carried away that he kind of did this little jump into the air. I think it was when he was impugning the credibility of the drug dealer as a witness, actually. "A criminal, ladies and gentleman! (hop) A common criminal!!!!!")

The next day was some kind of DC city government holiday, so court wasn't in session. The next day was Friday, when we were supposed to hear the closings and then start deliberations. I really thought that would be the end of the whole shebang. Oh, no nononono. There was SOOOO much to it. First the government gives their closing. Then the two defense attorneys give their closings. Then the government gets to rebut the defense's closing. Then the judge has to give instructions. He has to read out all the different charges, and what's part of all the charges, and what they mean, then he has to explain how the deliberations work and all about the reasonable doubt and the burden of proof, and blah blah blah. This part really was so boring. I think the reason there are twelve of you is in case 50% of the jurors fall asleep then there are six other people who can report what actually was said.

At this point there were still 14 of us though, because both of the alternates had yet to be dismissed. Turns out it was the guy to my right and a lady who sat behind me. Their numbers had been drawn out of a hat or whatever back before the trial started, so they were alternates the whole time, they just didn't know it. I was of a mixed mind about this alternate business. Initially I was sort of peeved because here was a second opportunity to actually get back to my life that I was totally missing. On the other hand, I'd seen this thing through all the way to the end and I'd feel kinda gypped if I didn't get to weigh in with the deliberations. (Since I had no choice I decided to try to go with that group of feelings.) Unfortunately, the two people who were dismissed were two of the most rational, level-headed of the group. They should have let US decide who they were going to send home, like on Biggest Loser. I would have sent Snacky Joe packing first thing. He scared me.

I'm in a post lunch coma so there'll just have to be a Part III. Hey, this trial sucked up 2 weeks of my life, if I can't get three blog entries out of it I'm just not trying hard enough.