MISTRIAL
Well, I can finally tell you about my jury duty experience, because the judge declared a mistrial today.
It was a child sex abuse case. The defendant was charged with 10 counts ranging from indecent assault on a child to rape of a child by force. The victims were his niece/stepdaughter (he had married his brother's ex) and his biological daughter. The niece alleged that the defendant had put his finger in her vagina when she was about 8, as they sat on the couch together (she was in her sleep clothes). The daughter alleged a long-term sexual relationship beginning when she was 4 or 5 that continued until she was 13 or 14. She said (in so many words) that she had acquiesced to him for so long that it became routine for her, although she always told him that she didn't want to do it any more.
The state's case consisted almost entirely of the two girls' testimony--one is still a minor, the other is a legal adult, though they are both still teenagers. The younger girl (niece) spoke with some emotion, the older girl spoke flatly throughout her long testimony. Two of the defendants sons, several of his coworkers, and his ex-wife all took the stand, but provided almost no corroboration of the girls stories, but not contradicting them either. The defendant never took the stand.
The state brought as evidence four nearly identical photos of the outside of the house in which the alleged abuse took place. The prosecutor asked every single former occupant of the house if each of the photos was a fair and accurate representation of the way the house looked back at the time of the alleged crimes (2000-2003). The state brought as evidence a quilt that had been on the older girl's bed at the time. They presented as evidence the fact that it was seized with a search warrant in 2006, because the girl said that there may be traces of semen on it. The state called the technician from the crime lab to the stand, where she testified that she found 50 stains using ultraviolet light (or some other tool), circled them, tested the quilt for the signature chemical of semen and discovered....nothing. This was actually presented as evidence by the prosecution.
The defense, for its part, was equally bafflingly incompetent: They called the defendant's former coworkers to the stand in order to testify about (I'm not kidding) the lunch habits of the defendant. One of the girls alleged that some of the abuse took place when he came home on his lunch break. They also said that the abuse constituted dozens, perhaps hundreds of instances. Discounting the lunch breaks, there was still more than the total of indictments charges left over. Then, quite suddenly, we were sent to deliberate. We had only the girls' testimony as evidence, plus a huge heap of irrelevant information.
I was one of only a couple jurors whose opinion swayed one way or the other during deliberation. I felt at first that the state simply didn't shoulder their burden of proof to overcome the presumption of evidence for us to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then I was persuaded that the weight of the girls' testimony was more important than I had first concluded, since they were speaking under oath, and we had no reasonable alternate theory about why they might be lying. This was over the course of 17 hours of deliberation over three days.
There was a lot of good discussion in the jury room, some shouting, some tears, and many headaches. We took votes four times, each time the split for each count was 5/7 6/6 or 7/5. At the end of yesterday's deliberation, we sent a note to the judge saying that we were at an impasse, and asked for guidance. She took us into the courtroom and simplified the definition of reasonable doubt and came just short of scolding us, telling us that it was our responsibility to reach a unanimous verdict, and that we had taken an oath to do so. After today's deliberation, we sent another note, using extremely careful language, explaining that we felt that we could not reach a unanimous verdict without compromising the moral conscience of one or more of the jurors. She called us back in, commended us on our hard work, and declared a mistrial.
She came to the jury room afterward and answered a few questions (and suffered a little brown-nosing). It was a fascinating process, and one that I do not intend to repeat, for a long long time, if ever.
If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. (But I won't use the names of any of the people or places involved in the case.)
It was a child sex abuse case. The defendant was charged with 10 counts ranging from indecent assault on a child to rape of a child by force. The victims were his niece/stepdaughter (he had married his brother's ex) and his biological daughter. The niece alleged that the defendant had put his finger in her vagina when she was about 8, as they sat on the couch together (she was in her sleep clothes). The daughter alleged a long-term sexual relationship beginning when she was 4 or 5 that continued until she was 13 or 14. She said (in so many words) that she had acquiesced to him for so long that it became routine for her, although she always told him that she didn't want to do it any more.
The state's case consisted almost entirely of the two girls' testimony--one is still a minor, the other is a legal adult, though they are both still teenagers. The younger girl (niece) spoke with some emotion, the older girl spoke flatly throughout her long testimony. Two of the defendants sons, several of his coworkers, and his ex-wife all took the stand, but provided almost no corroboration of the girls stories, but not contradicting them either. The defendant never took the stand.
The state brought as evidence four nearly identical photos of the outside of the house in which the alleged abuse took place. The prosecutor asked every single former occupant of the house if each of the photos was a fair and accurate representation of the way the house looked back at the time of the alleged crimes (2000-2003). The state brought as evidence a quilt that had been on the older girl's bed at the time. They presented as evidence the fact that it was seized with a search warrant in 2006, because the girl said that there may be traces of semen on it. The state called the technician from the crime lab to the stand, where she testified that she found 50 stains using ultraviolet light (or some other tool), circled them, tested the quilt for the signature chemical of semen and discovered....nothing. This was actually presented as evidence by the prosecution.
The defense, for its part, was equally bafflingly incompetent: They called the defendant's former coworkers to the stand in order to testify about (I'm not kidding) the lunch habits of the defendant. One of the girls alleged that some of the abuse took place when he came home on his lunch break. They also said that the abuse constituted dozens, perhaps hundreds of instances. Discounting the lunch breaks, there was still more than the total of indictments charges left over. Then, quite suddenly, we were sent to deliberate. We had only the girls' testimony as evidence, plus a huge heap of irrelevant information.
I was one of only a couple jurors whose opinion swayed one way or the other during deliberation. I felt at first that the state simply didn't shoulder their burden of proof to overcome the presumption of evidence for us to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then I was persuaded that the weight of the girls' testimony was more important than I had first concluded, since they were speaking under oath, and we had no reasonable alternate theory about why they might be lying. This was over the course of 17 hours of deliberation over three days.
There was a lot of good discussion in the jury room, some shouting, some tears, and many headaches. We took votes four times, each time the split for each count was 5/7 6/6 or 7/5. At the end of yesterday's deliberation, we sent a note to the judge saying that we were at an impasse, and asked for guidance. She took us into the courtroom and simplified the definition of reasonable doubt and came just short of scolding us, telling us that it was our responsibility to reach a unanimous verdict, and that we had taken an oath to do so. After today's deliberation, we sent another note, using extremely careful language, explaining that we felt that we could not reach a unanimous verdict without compromising the moral conscience of one or more of the jurors. She called us back in, commended us on our hard work, and declared a mistrial.
She came to the jury room afterward and answered a few questions (and suffered a little brown-nosing). It was a fascinating process, and one that I do not intend to repeat, for a long long time, if ever.
If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. (But I won't use the names of any of the people or places involved in the case.)