Paolo Sepi
04-03-2007, 12:38 AM
I was on a jury for the first (and so far only) time about 4 years ago. Since I am self employed in a partnership the burden of being on a jury was considerable, and ironically my business partner was selected to be on a jury only one week prior, so I probably hoped not to be selected, but I was willing to serve on a jury. I thought if I were ever on trial I would be hoping that the more capable jurors wouldn't be spending all their time trying to weasel out of serving.
The case involved a single man who had had a girlfriend who apparently had some trouble with drugs, he had broken up with her, but then went to her aid when her car broke down in a section of town with a bad reputation. She stayed with him that night, but something happened (she got high or something similar, the details escape me) and he kicked her out. She charged him with assault and domestic violence. We were to determine if in fact a crime had been committed, and if so was it against a domestic partner.
The jury pool consisted of probably 20 to 30 people, of whom 6 would form the jury. I was potential juror number one. We got the usual screening questions, did we know the defendant, or the attorneys, or anyone else involved in the case, etc. One or two people were dismissed, at least one for hardship. We were also asked if we would have difficulty finding an attorney not guilty :rolleyes: They then picked the first 6 of the remainder, including me.
The defense attorney was a bright one, very engaging, had his notes straight, and was obviously comfortable doing his job. The prosecutors (there were two) appeared to be fresh out of school, and did not seem well prepared or organized - they tended to give speeches rather than talking to the jurors.
The jury was an interesting mix. There were 5 white men and one black woman. The defendant was white, appeared to be from Southern European extraction. The "victim" was never seen, and I don't think her race or appearance was ever mentioned. All the court officers, as well as the judge, were white. But back to the jury. Contrary to the common impression that only the stupid get on juries, I think the people on the jury were probably all above average. The black lady worked for the state government in a supervisory capacity, one of the men was a professor and head of an institute at the University of Texas, two others were self-employed, I was a physician, and I forget what the last was.
The trial began on the afternoon of the day of jury selection and concluded the next morning. The atmosphere was pretty relaxed, apparently we had the only judge in Austin who lets the jurors drink coffee while in the jury box. He did ask us not to take notes (or he said notes would be collected).
The evidence, such as it was, was presented. The prosecution witnesses were called and gave their evidence, which was information sparse but necessary. The accusor never appeared, apparently she was in San Antonio. I don't think that sat well with the jury, something about being able to confront one's accusor was lacking. The defense attorney was polished, the prosecutors were inexperienced. The accused did take the stand. He denied hitting or striking the accusor, although he did force her out of his home.
The state utterly failed to prove its case. After closing arguments, we retired to the jury room, elected the black lady as the foreman (she had been on a jury before, the only one of us who had) and got right down to it. I ventured that there was no convincing evidence that the accused had physically assaulted the defendant, indeed he had tried to be a good samaritan and had been poorly repaid for his efforts. Everybody agreed. The issue of whether she was a domestic partner (I thought she wasn't) was irrelevant. We talked a bit more and told the baliff we were done.
I don't regret my vote, even if it turned out he had been guilty of a crime the state did not prove its case. I felt sorry for the guy, he had been jerked around for over a year, and he was finally shed of this charge.
The case involved a single man who had had a girlfriend who apparently had some trouble with drugs, he had broken up with her, but then went to her aid when her car broke down in a section of town with a bad reputation. She stayed with him that night, but something happened (she got high or something similar, the details escape me) and he kicked her out. She charged him with assault and domestic violence. We were to determine if in fact a crime had been committed, and if so was it against a domestic partner.
The jury pool consisted of probably 20 to 30 people, of whom 6 would form the jury. I was potential juror number one. We got the usual screening questions, did we know the defendant, or the attorneys, or anyone else involved in the case, etc. One or two people were dismissed, at least one for hardship. We were also asked if we would have difficulty finding an attorney not guilty :rolleyes: They then picked the first 6 of the remainder, including me.
The defense attorney was a bright one, very engaging, had his notes straight, and was obviously comfortable doing his job. The prosecutors (there were two) appeared to be fresh out of school, and did not seem well prepared or organized - they tended to give speeches rather than talking to the jurors.
The jury was an interesting mix. There were 5 white men and one black woman. The defendant was white, appeared to be from Southern European extraction. The "victim" was never seen, and I don't think her race or appearance was ever mentioned. All the court officers, as well as the judge, were white. But back to the jury. Contrary to the common impression that only the stupid get on juries, I think the people on the jury were probably all above average. The black lady worked for the state government in a supervisory capacity, one of the men was a professor and head of an institute at the University of Texas, two others were self-employed, I was a physician, and I forget what the last was.
The trial began on the afternoon of the day of jury selection and concluded the next morning. The atmosphere was pretty relaxed, apparently we had the only judge in Austin who lets the jurors drink coffee while in the jury box. He did ask us not to take notes (or he said notes would be collected).
The evidence, such as it was, was presented. The prosecution witnesses were called and gave their evidence, which was information sparse but necessary. The accusor never appeared, apparently she was in San Antonio. I don't think that sat well with the jury, something about being able to confront one's accusor was lacking. The defense attorney was polished, the prosecutors were inexperienced. The accused did take the stand. He denied hitting or striking the accusor, although he did force her out of his home.
The state utterly failed to prove its case. After closing arguments, we retired to the jury room, elected the black lady as the foreman (she had been on a jury before, the only one of us who had) and got right down to it. I ventured that there was no convincing evidence that the accused had physically assaulted the defendant, indeed he had tried to be a good samaritan and had been poorly repaid for his efforts. Everybody agreed. The issue of whether she was a domestic partner (I thought she wasn't) was irrelevant. We talked a bit more and told the baliff we were done.
I don't regret my vote, even if it turned out he had been guilty of a crime the state did not prove its case. I felt sorry for the guy, he had been jerked around for over a year, and he was finally shed of this charge.