A Juror and a Christian, Part 4

I felt twinges of nervous excitement and anxiety when I got the courthouse on Thursday morning.  In all honesty, I was mostly worried about being selected as an alternate juror.  After having sat through three days of the trial, I didn't want to have to wait in a room while everyone else deliberated!  That would have been a pretty big let-down after having invested so much already.  But I wasn't selected as an alternate, nor was I appointed the jury foreman; so we all went into the jury room at about 10am.

The deliberation was nothing like what I had expected it to me.  There was very little organized discussion.  Instead, there was generally multiple conversations going on at once, often alternating between expressions of emotions and rational thought and interspersed with, "Are they bringing us coffee?"  (which they did!)  I was really surprised by the amount of frustration in the room, but now that I reflect on it, I suppose it was very natural.  We had been there for over three days already, we had listened to intense testimony, we had precious little evidence on which to decide the verdict, and there were twelve people who all had to agree by the end.

I honestly believed the defendant was guilty.  We hadn't deliberated very long at all before it became obvious that everyone in the room truly believed that he was guilty.  However, the only direct we evidence we had for his guilt was the testimony of one material witness, and that testimony was not "water-proof," so to speak.  However, all the circumstantial evidence led to the conclusion that the material witness was telling the truth.  So essentially, in my mind at least, the main question was whether the testimony of the material witness combined with the circumstantial evidence defeated all reasonable doubts.  The gentleman who sat next to me on my right was vocal from the outset that he didn't believe there was enough evidence to convict the defendant.  However, not all were convinced.

We decided to start discussing the sixth charge, since that seemed the easiest of all.  Within five minutes everyone was ready to return a guilty verdict except for me.  This was the charge of the threatening phone call to intimidate the witness.  In order to convict the defendant of this charge, the law clearly stated that the prosecutor had to prove that that the defendant intended to interfere with the witness' testimony.  I wasn't convinced that the motive had indeed been proven from the evidence.  We hashed it out for several more minutes, and I asked for some more time to think about it.  So decided to come back to it later.

We moved on to the incident itself and talked ourselves in circles for over two hours.  No one raised their voices during this time, but frustration clearly filled the room.  In retrospect, I don't think we were really deliberating the case.  Rather, I think we were simply externalizing the tension we all felt: all of us truly believed the defendant was guilty, but none of us were sure.  It was like it just took us all several hours to resign ourselves to the fact that, according to the law, we had to return a Not Guilty verdict.  

Finally, someone suggested that we listen to the recording of the 9-1-1 call.  We probably spent over an hour listening to that call and talking about it.  The call itself was about 5 minutes long, and I think we played it back at least 4 times.  We continued to banter back and forth until the guy sitting across the table from me said, "Whoa!  Listen ... she [the material witness] says, 'I didn't see it.'"  The discussion between the 9-1-1 operator and the material witness was confusing, but it seemed clear that the phone conversation was taking place as they victims were being chased then as they were attacked.  There was a lot of crying and hysteria on the recording, as well as a lot of Spanish being spoken in the background.  At one point, the material witness cries out, saying, "I think someone's been shot!" (although this wasn't the case - the victim had just been hit in the head and fell to the ground)  Some frantic conversation ensued as the 9-1-1 was trying to ascertain the condition of the victim.  At one point he asked, "How did he get hit?"  The material witness then replied, "I don't know, I didn't see it."  After this, the deliberation come to a quick conclusion.  While tape certainly didn't disprove the testimony of the material witness, it did call into question what exactly she saw and what she didn't.  And because we couldn't be certain that the defendant was even there, none of the first five charges could be proven.

We ate lunch and then returned to the discussion of the phone call.  After a little more discussion, I agreed to return a Guilty verdict for that charge.  While the intent of the phone hadn't been absolutely proven, the circumstantial evidence left no other intent reasonably plausible.  I had doubt, but I didn't have a substantive reason to doubt.  Therefore, we voted Guilty for the sixth charge.  The rest was quite anti-climactic, actually.  We went down to the courtroom, the foreman read the verdict, the judge made some comments, and we were dismissed from the courtroom.  We never did hear the sentencing.

After we were dismissed, the judge came up to the jury room and talked to us for about 15 minutes or so.  He talked to us a little about the trial, saying that he thought the case was tried pretty well.  One of the guys talked about how he wished the verdict had gone the other way.  The judge replied, "Ah, but that's the beauty of our justice system.  The evidence just wasn't there."  The judge told us that just about everybody involved were illegal immigrants which made everything much more difficult.  But then after that, he admitted to us that two of the other three assailants had already pled guilty to the crime!  This information was gut-wrenching.  As of that time, the leader of the perpetrators had not been arrested because he was on the run.  My assumption is that he has returned to Honduras.

I know at least three of us jurors left with knots in our stomach.  The whole situation was awful.  Only God knows for certain, obviously, but a guilty man had been acquitted.  Why?  Because the law forbade it.  The requirements of conviction had not been met.  But was justice done?  This was the question with which I now wrestled; and the answer was an emphatic, "NO!"  So now what?

A Juror and a Christian, Part 3

Prior to arriving in court on Wednesday morning, I remember thinking about the case from the perspective of the defense attorney.  Should I put the defendant on the witness stand?  If so, and the defendant's story is different from the only material witness, then it follows logically that one or the other is lying, or possibly both.  In this case, putting the defendant on the witness stand could actually work against him, especially if it seems like he is lying as he is on the stand.

We waited quite a while in the jury room on Wednesday morning before being called into the courtroom.  As we were waiting, I began to reflect more specifically on the question, "What does Scripture say about this (this entire experience)?"  I was drawn to the latter part of Romans, particularly chapter 13.  In that chapter, Paul discusses, in frustratingly sparing details, some thoughts concerning government and civil/criminal justice.  I will discuss this further later.

Finally, we were called down to the courtroom (the jury room was a floor above) and the prosecution rested his case.  The defense attorney then recalled the police officer who had arrived on the scene the night of the incident.  He answered one question related to one particular detail of the testimony of the material witness.  She said that he had started laughing upon seeing the victim on the ground, thinking at first that the victim was drunk instead of injured.  He testified that he never started laughing.

The defendant took the stand.  He wasn't defiant, but he certainly was not forthcoming about any information.  He sat leaning back, sometimes with he arms crossed in front of him.  He didn't even give an alibi, not really.  He merely said that he went home after work and started to watch TV because he needed to rest for work early the next morning.  In cross-examination, the prosecuting attorney asked him if he remembered that specific night or whether he was simply following his normal pattern of behavior.  The defendant answered, "I remember it because the next day I was arrested."  The defendant's testimony probably lasted a grand total of 15 minutes, much of that time being taken up with the interpretation of questions and his answers.  Being a juror in the case, I think that putting him on the stand was a mistake.  After hearing the defendant's testimony, I was more inclined to believe the material witness.

In closing arguments, the defense attorney went first and did not really help matters given the circumstances.  But this is where I thought the assist D.A. really did an outstanding job, and I think so even more now that the case is over and I've had some more time to think about it.  First, he pointed out all the things about the case that were NOT in dispute.  Two men were badly beaten, one almost to the point of death.  Everyone agrees about the weapons used in the crime.  Everyone agrees about the fact that there was a feud going on in the family.  Really, the only detail about which there is dispute (as it relates to the defendant) is whether he was there or not.  He admitted, as the defense attorney had pointed out, that the only direct evidence for the crime comes from the testimony of one person.  However, he pointed out that much circumstantial evidence corroborated the testimony of the material witness.  He didn't say this in court, but I later thought, that virtually ALL the circumstantial evidence corroborates the testimony of the material witness.  Conversely, the only bit of circumstantial evidence that gave credence (but did not prove in any sense) the defendant's testimony was the fact that the material witness did not identify the defendant to the police until the following day.  The prosecuting attorney also made much of the fact that the defendant certainly did not act on the stand like a man falsely accused.  In this last statement, I fully agreed with him.

After lunch, then, the judge read the charges and instructions, etc., which took the whole afternoon, as I described earlier.  At the end of this, the judge informed us that two jurors would be randomly selected to be alternates (because there were 14 of us at that point) and a jury foreman would be appointed.  However, since it was very close to the end of the day, all of that would take place the next morning.  So everything was now completed, and it was time for the jury to deliberate and come to a verdict.  The judge reminded us that the word "verdict" comes from the French, which in turn comes from the Latin.  It means to "speak the truth," regardless of the consequences.

That night I rested easier, actually, although I was now dreading the lottery to come the following morning.  I must confess that I really didn't want to be chosen to sit out of the deliberation process, especially after having gone through the entire proceedings up to that point!  

A Juror and a Christian, Part 2

The court spent all day Tuesday listening to the six witnesses for the prosecution.  The experience was not a pleasant one.  The witnesses were good witnesses and performed admirably on the stand.  However, the two primary witnesses (the eyewitness and the woman who received the threats) were understandably emotional while giving their testimony.  Clearly, these women had suffered immensely on account of the violence.

On top of this, the defense attorney comported himself horribly throughout the entire case.  I remember thinking to myself after he had started to question one witness, "If the jury returns a Not Guilty verdict, it won't be because of the defense attorney!"  The attorney openly scoffed at witnesses, mainly during his closing arguments but also during his examination.  He asked leading questions, which made me kind of mad, actually.  Most of his questions were poorly worded and difficult to understand; in one instance, he questioned a witness for ten minutes regarding one detail and still didn't really get the information he was asking for, a scenario he could have avoided by asking a good question in the first place.  He was a bit elderly, probably in his sixties, so it was understandable that he would have trouble with details.  However, he was mixing up dates while questioning witnesses, referring to people by incorrect names, and  fumbling for questions.  In my opinion, he was thoroughly unprofessional.

In contrast, the heroes of the case were the court interpreters.  Many of the members of this family were Honduran, including the defendant, so the entire dialogue of the court had to be translated into Spanish.  There were two court interpreters, a young man and a middle-aged woman, who traded off about every 30 minutes.  Quite frankly, I was astounded at the performance of these individuals.  There were two witnesses who didn't speak English, so they translated those examinations for the entire court (all the other times they were translating for the defendant only).  These interpreters translated EVERYTHING, even down to the "um" witnesses would utter between words.  They reflected intonation and voice inflection.  They would catch words that were repeated and thoughts that were left unfinished by the speaker.  It was a spectacular performance.  It still amazes me to think that those two people do that every day, day after day after day.  What a profession!

The assistant district attorney, who was prosecuting the case, mirrored what I would have conceived him to be.  He was young, tall, extremely well-dressed, articulate, wore a wedding band and glasses.  He made his case very well.  The witnesses were, in order: the police officer who arrived on the scene the night of the attack; the woman who testified to witnessing the attack; the detective assigned to the case; the police officer who arrested the defendant the following day; the woman who received the threatening phone call; and the man who was severely beaten.  The other victim did not appear in court because he had been in the country illegally and consequently was deported back to Honduras.  

Having been a security officer in the past, I was less than impressed with the police officer who responded the night of the attack.  The material witness for the entire case was the woman testified next.  She had been walking with the other two men when they were attacked, she was ignored by the attackers and had opportunity to call 9-1-1, and she had talked both with the 9-1-1- operator as well as the police officer who arrived on the scene.  She testified, in no uncertain terms, that she had seen the defendant wielding a piece of wood ("like a 2x4 board") and hitting Victim A in the head and Victim B in the back.  She also testified that she had seen him kicking both of them on the ground.  However, she admitted that she had not identified the defendant to the police that night.  In her brief interview with the police, she had only identified two of the four men.  The following day she saw the defendant on the street and called the police, identifying him at that time.  He was then arrested.

We would have then heard from the police officer who made the arrest, but he was in the restroom.  It was getting on toward lunch, so the detective was brought in instead.  His testimony was largely immaterial except that he gave the details concerning the positive identification of the defendant that occurred after the defendant's arrest.  The arresting police officer then appeared in court and testified that the material witness had told him on the day of the arrest that the defendant had carried a gun and said to them the night before, "Who wants to die tonight?"  This was different than her testimony given on the witness stand.  In court, she had been clear, consistently, that it was one of the other men who had brandished the gun and threatened the victims with death.  She had also testified that the gun had been tossed to the defendant in the middle of the incident.

Next, the woman who had received the threatening phone call was put on the witness stand.  I don't think anybody in the courtroom had any doubt whatsoever ... she was clearly terrified of the defendant.  During the entire examination, she acted like a woman who had been through a horrific ordeal (as she had, of course.  Her husband had been beaten nearly to death.).  She was emotional yet gave her testimony admirably.  Finally, the victim himself came to testify.  He showed us the scars on his head, told us he couldn't smell any more because of the attack, explained to us that he has trouble remembering things now; but most importantly, he doesn't remember the attack.  He only remembers being approached by the first attacker and then waking up over three weeks later in the hospital.  This was the end of the first day of testimony.

That night, Tuesday evening, was the most difficult time for me personally, I think.  I was distracted the entire evening, thinking about the case.  Thankfully, I had something fun to work on, planning a camping trip next month with some friends.  But I was very uneasy at the thought of having to eventually make the decision regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  It took me a little while to fall asleep that night, too.  Particularly, I was pondering whether I could, in clear conscience, return a Guilty verdict based on the testimony of only one witness.

A Juror and a Christian, Part 1

I have just completed one of the most fascinating experiences of my life.  For the past four days, I have served on a trial jury for a criminal case in the Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts.  I am going to blog about the experience because of the complexity of the case and the difficulty with which we (the jury) reached our conclusion, the personal tension I have felt in considering all the evidence, and the impact this experience has had (and will continue to have, I suspect) on my thinking about Jesus, the existence of a divine Being in general, and how the principle of justice relates to my Christian faith.

First, I will lay out the general order of events.  I showed up for jury duty at 8am on Monday morning and sat in the jury pool waiting room until about 11:30.  At that time, about 50 of us were called up to a courtroom on the 8th floor.  The jury selection process took two full hours, and I was selected as Juror #7.  After the jury was selected, we broke for lunch then heard opening statements from the lawyers before court adjourned for the day.

The story we heard during opening statements was, in a word, tragic.  The vast majority of the parties involved were all related to one another.  A feud developed in this extended family until the tensions erupted one night, resulting in a violent fight.  Four men ambushed two other men on the street late at night, at least one of the four saying, "Who wants to die tonight?"  Between them all, they were carrying a gun, a piece of wood (not a bat, but like a bat), and a metal loop-cap from a chain-link fence post.  One of the two men had his bashed in like a pinata and was in a coma for almost a month.  The other man was beaten but did not have serious injuries.  Other than these six men, there was only one other person present, a woman who had been walking with the two men when they were ambushed.  Approximately a month and a half after the incident (and after the grand jury hearing) the common-law wife of the man who was severely beaten received a call from one of the four men (and a second in the background) receiving threats of rape.

The man on trial was one of the four alleged men who had committed the crime and made the threatening phone call a month later.  There were 6 counts against him: 1) Assault with intent to murder Victim A; 2) Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon as a joint venture against Victim B; 3) Individual assault and battery with a dangerous weapon against Victim B; 4) Assault and batter with a dangerous weapon as a joint venturer against Victim A; 5) Individual assault and battery with a dangerous weapon against Victim A; 6) Intimidation of a Witness against the common-law wife of Victim A.

The work day was over by this time, so everybody went home.  We returned on Tuesday morning and heard all the witnesses for the prosecution.  It turns out that legal proceedings are agonizingly slow.  It took all day to hear testimony from 6 witnesses.  On Wednesday we heard the two defense witnesses and listened to closing arguments, which took us all the way to lunch.  After lunch, the judge then read us the charges, read the laws applicable to the charges, and the instructions to the jury pertaining to the charges.  While we were waiting to go back down to the courtroom after lunch, we asked the court officer escorting us how long he thought it would take for the judge to read us all the instructions.  He responded, "Oh, like two hours, probably.  There's six charges!"  At first we thought he was joking, so we all laughed as were lined up in the hallway.  But when he didn't laugh along, we realized that he was serious ... and he was.  It took a full two hours for the judge simply to read us all the instructions pertaining to the charges at hand.  So, once again, we all went home and returned on Thursday morning to start deliberation.  We deliberated for four animated hours before coming to a verdict on all 6 charges.

In this entire process, I found myself wrestling with some serious, serious questions.  Humanly speaking, how do we define justice?  How do I define it?  Now that the case is completed, has justice been done (to use the biblical terminology)?  And especially, how ought I as a Christian to think and act as a participant on a jury in the American system of justice?  Does being a Christian make a difference?

I feel that I need to tell this story mainly for my own sake; and if others benefit, so much the better.  I have spent a lot of time thinking about the concept of justice this past semester, and I am amazed how God allowed me to have this experience now, at its conclusion.  In the following posts, I'll talk about each particular day of the trial and record some of my mental processes and emotional reactions.  Finally, I'll talk about why this experience has affected me so much in terms of how I think about God and Jesus ... and why being both a juror and a Christian has mattered so much to me in this process.

The Man Who Was Thursday

The text speaks for itself, from pg. 89 of my edition:

"Do you see this lantern?" cried Syme in a terrible voice.  "Do you see the cross carved on it, and the flame inside?  You did not make it.  You did not light it.  Better men than you, men who could believe and obey, twisted the entrails of iron and preserved the legend of fire.  There is not a street you walk on, there is not a thread you wear, that was not made as this lantern was, by denying your philosophy of dirt and rats.  You can make nothing.  You can only destroy.  You will destroy mankind; you will destroy the world.  Let that suffice you.  Yet this one old Christian lantern you shall not destroy.  It shall go where your empire of apes will never have the wit to find it."

G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday