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!