It was a crack-cocaine possession and sale case. The defendant was a young African-American woman. The alleged amount of cocaine in her possession was a few grams. It was a twelve person jury. Seven women and five men. Ten white and two black members and the average age skewed older.
The principle witness for the prosecution was the arresting police officer. Iirc he was white but it could have been Latino. The prosecutor helpfully provided a diagram of the alleged crime site and the cop testified as to where he’d been, what he’d seen, what he did, and when he did it.
The cop lost me from the get-go as a simple sketch from the dimensions the prosecutor and witness supplied indicated that the officer’s first alleged observation would have been impossible. Other jurors had difficulty with other elements of the officer’s narrative (most of which I also agreed with). After a somewhat heated first deliberative session, we were split with seven for acquittal and five for guilty. Two of the five (both women, one black and one white) expressed some reservations. Two others (both sixtyish, both women and also one white and one black) spoke little but appeared to be reasonably confident in their vote. The last of the five was an elderly white man who may have made his decision based on one look at the defendant.
That elderly white male juror was the last one to be seated. And then only because of a lengthy voir dire, he was the last one left in the jury pool and only thirteen people had been empaneled. By luck of the draw, he was on the jury and not an alternate. Not that it mattered as one juror and one alternate had been excused by the time deliberations began.
We reported the lack of consensus to the court and the judge told us to come back tomorrow and work harder.
The next day before we entered the deliberation room, the conflicted African-American woman excitedly began to tell us a couple of us what she’d seen when she drove past the site of the alleged crime. I stopped her right there.
We were finished.
The only question left was what we reported back to the court.
We gathered and took one more vote: nine for acquittal and three for guilty. The white woman that changed her vote had had a sleepless night until she had a revelation that it didn’t matter how implausible she found the defendant’s story if she wasn’t persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
We reported that we were hopelessly deadlocked. Odds were decent that at some point two of the hold-outs would have wanted to go home. However, as sure as I can be of anything, that old white man would have sat in that room until he died before changing his vote. But racism began long before we were in that jury room.
From our racist (and stupid) drug laws that disproportionately target people of color. To disproportionate law enforcement focus on people of color. To the prosecutorial overcharging of crimes against people of color. In this particular case, the defendant had an excellent public defender that didn’t force her to accept a plea and represented her very well at the trial, but that’s not the norm.
Does it matter that the official record only recorded one of the reasons why we had a mistrial?
You were quite right to stop that juror who violated the judge’s order not to investigate on her own. The judge did instruct the jury about that, didn’t he/she?
The old white man might have been racist. He might have been more willing to believe a police officer than a defendant. You did say that the defendant’s story was implausible. He might simply have disagreed. I wasn’t there. You were. I might well agree with you if I had seen his body language and looked into his eyes. But “old white” juror, “white cop”, “black defendant” doesn’t mean a guilty vote is prejudiced.
Instead of deadlock, if I were the foreman (and I have been), I would have reported the juror’s dereliction to the bailiff.
The old guy wasn’t alert during the trial. In deliberations he shared his narrative of the case — mostly his fantasy and it was racist.
Of course the judge included that instruction. iirc the juror told me later that she didn’t think driving by the site was a violation.
Yes, we should have informed the court. But the juror was such a nice lady and she was conflicted about her guilty vote and thought if she just drove by the site it would all become clearer to her. Had the other three holdouts (none of whom was present when the juror admitted what she’d done) reconsidered their vote during the overnight recess and it was unanimous for acquittal, we would have had no choice but to report the juror’s violation. As it was what was the point in putting that juror through some official grief?
We probably changed nothing. However, it’s conceivable that with the seven five split from the day before the prosecutor would have elected to re-try the case. With nine to three he indicated that they’d probably drop it.
After we were thanked and excused, that juror disclosed to we mini-jury nullifiers what she’d seen. I’d been right — the cop had lied. From the angle and distance he couldn’t have seen what he claimed to see as he peered through a hole in concrete brick wall fence. But he didn’t know that because there was no hole in that wall, and as that juror said, “And let me tell you honey, that wall hasn’t been repaired in decades.”
A tough call. I would have felt better if she saw it, changed her vote, and then shut up about it.
Defense blew it if there was no hole.
Reconsidering, yeah the juror shouldn’t have gone there and the cop shouldn’t have perjured himself. Which is worse?
ProbablyDefinitely the perjury.BTW, didn’t want to be foreman. I think the other jurors drafted me because I was the only man wearing a suit. Once I admitted having gone to college, I was sunk. I didn’t want to be foreman because I didn’t want to be neutral and draw out both sides. I wanted to argue passionately for what I believed. Still, it worked out.
Not sure I understand what you mean with this: “I would have felt better if she saw it, changed her vote, and then shut up about it.”
Public defenders are understaffed and overworked. As there was plenty to pick apart in the cop’s testimony doubt it occurred to them us their limited resources to check out the site. He did come close to getting an acquittal (and really didn’t want that old guy on the jury but that would have delayed the trial another day).
For many years had a job that I was told guaranteed I would never serve on a jury. We were often called and quickly rejected. In criminal trials the defense excused us. Was surprised that the PD not only didn’t object to me but said fine with no questions. When the prosecutor asked for hands of those that didn’t really want to serve on the jury. He let the first two go and when he got to me he said, “Your choice is hearing a case or spending two more weeks sitting in the jury selection room.” Not too many things worse than hanging out in a jury room — except maybe serving on a jury.
I meant that then I would not have the moral dilemma of deciding whether to report her or not. What she saw was crucial evidence and I would be glad that she decided on it, but she did violate her oath.
I wasn’t glad that she did it. While we were headed for a hung jury and mistrial, it foreclosed the possibility of changing any of what would have been the four “guilty” votes. The juror that had changed her vote would have been an effective ally in persuading one or more of the other three women.
The three or four us that were aware of the juror’s violation did not share that with the others and didn’t know in which way it had influenced that juror until we were back in the deliberation room and took another vote. We halted deliberations at that point; none of us aware of what had led either of the two jurors to change.
Neglected to mention that that old man not only wanted to convict the defendant but also her two witnesses (both black women). If we could have brought morality into the equation, he was also in violation of the instructions because he wasn’t basing his decision on the evidence and law.
Doubt I’d ever rat out anyone for a technically legal violation if it doesn’t significantly change an outcome. Least of all a black woman. Nine to three for acquittal was close enough to where we would have gotten without that violation. And in an interview with the prosecutor, the foreman disclosed the old man’s obstructionism.
I don’t know if the defendant was guilty only that the prosecution didn’t prove it.
(Recall that one juror had reconsidered.) In that event, we would have been obligated to keep working.
No breaks for public defenders. They should be every bit as diligent and competent as private attorneys, else our right to an attorney if we cannot afford one is a sick joke.
You seem to be missing the fact that he was effective counsel for the defendant. (Far better than most that would have had her cop a plea and do some time.) He challenged the cop’s story which for at least eight jurors failed at some point in his narrative.
Give public defenders the same amount of money and resources that the prosecution has, then “no breaks” would be valid. In our real world it’s no more valid than saying “no breaks” for kids that attend underfunded schools. I’m way too much of a liberal to share that viewpoint.