Daniel
10-08-2007, 06:33 PM
I spent three days on a California jury for a young man accused of misdemeanor property damage in excess of $400. A young lady and three friends attended a Halloween costume party were the accused was present. The plaintiff had danced with the defendant several times. A fight broke out between partygoers and one of the male friends accompanying the plaintiff. As they left the party and got into their car, they were surrounded by several men, the accused included, who began kicking the car. Photographic evidence was submitted revealing considerable damage to the car.
The plaintiff (the owner of the car) and two passengers in the car positively identified the defendant as one of those kicking the car. The defense attorney was confident and effective, albeit with little to work with. The prosecutor seemed nervous but competent enough. They presented their cases, we deliberated for two days.
I’m not sure I would want my fate in the hands of that jury. The minutia they allowed themselves to explore was exasperating. Two days deliberating on a pretty cut and dried misdemeanor seemed a little ridiculous, but I vowed I wouldn’t let the inconvenience of returning for a third or more day color my decision. A number of the jurors commented otherwise. Day one resulted in 7-5 guilty. When I asked that the court recorder reread testimony that three witnesses identified the defendant in the courtroom as one of them kicking the car, two not-guiltys changed to guilty. The foreman we elected was an idiot. One of his statements was “I think he’s guilty, I just don’t know if he caused over $400 dollars damage.” Fair enough I guess, even though several of us noted that pretty much leaning on a car can cause $400 worth of damage at today’s body shop prices. And if the charge has a qualifying dollar amount, the prosecution should have submitted evidence that it was met, although the photos submitted really didn’t leave any doubt. The foreman also stated that he thought the defendant was guilty, but since other young men had taken part in kicking the car but were not on trial, it wasn’t fair to find the accused guilty. This seemed to carry significant weight with the other two not guiltys. Mistrial.
The plaintiff (the owner of the car) and two passengers in the car positively identified the defendant as one of those kicking the car. The defense attorney was confident and effective, albeit with little to work with. The prosecutor seemed nervous but competent enough. They presented their cases, we deliberated for two days.
I’m not sure I would want my fate in the hands of that jury. The minutia they allowed themselves to explore was exasperating. Two days deliberating on a pretty cut and dried misdemeanor seemed a little ridiculous, but I vowed I wouldn’t let the inconvenience of returning for a third or more day color my decision. A number of the jurors commented otherwise. Day one resulted in 7-5 guilty. When I asked that the court recorder reread testimony that three witnesses identified the defendant in the courtroom as one of them kicking the car, two not-guiltys changed to guilty. The foreman we elected was an idiot. One of his statements was “I think he’s guilty, I just don’t know if he caused over $400 dollars damage.” Fair enough I guess, even though several of us noted that pretty much leaning on a car can cause $400 worth of damage at today’s body shop prices. And if the charge has a qualifying dollar amount, the prosecution should have submitted evidence that it was met, although the photos submitted really didn’t leave any doubt. The foreman also stated that he thought the defendant was guilty, but since other young men had taken part in kicking the car but were not on trial, it wasn’t fair to find the accused guilty. This seemed to carry significant weight with the other two not guiltys. Mistrial.