Reasonable Doubt

I recently sat on the jury of a criminal trial. This was the 2nd time I was selected as a juror and I actually enjoy it. I'm crazy, huh?

All jury trials begin with a jury selection process called Voir Dire . This is where the lawyers ask potential jurors questions to weed out the crazies, the biased, and the unqualified. Before we began Voir Dire everyone spoke and understood perfect English. When we began, three potential juror's accents suddenly got thicker and they had a hard time understanding the American Language. hahaha. It is always interesting to watch what people do to get out of jury duty. Anyway, to the trial. I knew I was going to get picked for the jury because I didn't get asked any questions. They must just see it on my face. Trustworthy! Haha.


Charge:
Defendant is charged with aggravated Robbery against his friends (boyfriend and girlfriend). According to the couple, also the only witnesses, the defendant came over one night around 11pm to play video games. The Defendant arrived with two other guys and they robbed the couple at gunpoint. They Stole a TV, PS3, PS3 games, DVDs, a DVD player, and a couple hundred bucks.

Evidence:
The two victims' (boyfriend and girlfriend) testimony and a fingerprint.

Testimony:
Victim #1 (girlfriend) testified first. She testified her and her boyfriend smoked weed and played video games with the defendant a few times over a years time. One day he called late one night to play video games, showed up and robbed the place. The girlfriends testimony was pretty believable until the defense attorney asked her to name her weed supplier. Prior to asking this question the defense attorney was insinuating the victims were themselves drug dealers. She refused to answer. The Judge told the girl "No, you will answer!". She waved a hand, rolled her eyes and said "I don't know....Jose". Defense attorney asked what the last name was. She rolled her eyes again and said "Gonzales". I and all the other jurors knew she just made up that name. Credibility lost! She lied about a few other things. One was how much money she earned as a waitress for Village Inn, Black Eyed Pea, or some restaurant of that type. $4,000 a month! Really?

Victim #2 (boyfriend) testified he met the defendant through his uncle who works with the defendants uncle. The defendants uncle approached the victim and said 'Hey, you should call my nephew. Maybe you guys can play video games together'. I thought this was so strange. The defendant is in his 30's, the victim late 20's. Who has an uncle that hooks up play dates between two adults? That was a lie. The victim was also a convicted felon who beat his previous girlfriend and tried to lie about one of his convictions on the stand. After a few 'side bars' and juror dismissals, the witness was finally ordered to be more forthcoming with the truth. He also lied about how much money he earns as a furniture mover. $1,600 a week! Seriously?

Both of the Victims testified they did not know the Defendants name until the day after the crime. They knew they guy for over a year and didn't know his name? The day after the crime the boyfriend said he found a pill bottle with the defendants name and address on it. The pill bottle was never given to the police as evidence and never produced for the trial. Very strange.

A couple of cops testified and that really hurt the State's case. Some of the testimony from the police contradicted the testimony from the victims. Then there was the issue with the evidence. There was one fingerprint found in the house that belonged to the defendant on the TV that was not stolen. The TV was not stolen because it was screwed into the tv stand. The problem is it was the same TV the defendant used on several occasions to play video games on. It kind of makes sense that his fingerprint could be on it.


Going in to deliberations I had my mind made up the defendant was not guilty. He might have committed the crime, but there was definitely reasonable doubt about his guilt. No physical evidence puts him at the crime scene on the day the crime was committed and the only two witnesses lied throughout their testimony. Plus it makes absolutely no sense for someone to rob someone who they know personally. You would always get caught. "Who robbed you?" "John. His uncle's name is Stan and he works with my uncle Louie. Here's his phone number". Caught! That did not make sense. We did a preliminary vote and it came back 7 not guilty, 4 guilty, and 1 undecided. After a few hours of discussing it and some tears (not mine) we all came to an agreement. No enough evidence to convict.

There was more to the case, but I didn't want to write too much. There were other drugs involved, two accomplices that were never found, a gun that was never found, more weird testimony by the victims, and so on. It was a strange case that I'm surprised made it to court.

I enjoyed the trial and hope I get picked again next year. I felt all of the jurors were fair and thought everything through thoroughly before making their decisions. We made the right choice. I'm 1 for 1 now. Last year when I sat on a jury we convicted a girl for DWI.