ahhh, the trial…

Now that we’re all caught up on how jury selection works and why I am always selected to sit on a jury, let me share with you the ridiculousness of the actual case that we had to hear. I’ll tell it the same way I experienced it and in the same fashion that certain information was given to me/us – the jury.

On December 15th 2009, I arrive at the courthouse well before I was supposed to be there and made my way to the deliberation room for District Court 7 on the 7th Floor. The judge had made it extremely clear that we were NOT to be late. I did not take that as an idle threat as he was ex-military – a higher up of some kinda. We were to be in the deliberation room by 8:45am as court started promptly at 9:00am. I was there by 8:15am. I’d be damned if it was me that was going to be late!

As the other 11 jurors and 1 alternate make their way into the room, they sit down and we all make small chit-chat. Nothing special, because we were instructed NOT to talk about the case, which we still had no direct knowledge of outside of the jury selection questions and crafted speculations. We did try and surmise how many days we thought it would take to finish the trial. It was my guess that we’d have to go through to Wednesday on the basis of a few things. First, there was a gal that they selected that had children that she needed to pick up by 4:00pm. When she was selected to be on the jury the day before, the judge said we would work around her schedule (i.e. end trial for the day at 3:30pm so she could get her kids). Second, trial began at 9am. We were told we would take 30minute breaks every hour – on the hour. Then the judge tells us that we are taking lunch from 11:30am to 2:00pm. Why so long you ask? Well, simple – he was really big on the jury bonding, so we weren’t allowed to leave for lunch, but rather we had to get to know our fellow jury members. Awesome. So that being said, with all the 30minute breaks, the ridiculously long lunch hour and having to shut trial down at 3:30pm didn’t leave a whole lot of room to hear the whole trial in 1 day. I guessed we’d hear all the witnesses, but would have to come back Wednesday to continue to deliberate.

Made sense to me, but the lawyers and judge knew more than we did. They kept saying that they did not feel the trial would go more than 1 day. My reservation on believing that little detail was biased as the last trial I was on, they said it would last 1-2 days and I was there for 5.

After trying to guesstimate how much time we’d have to feel “civic” the jurors tried to speculate as to why each member was selected. I openly made the observation that it was a male dominated jury – 4 women and 9 men. If I had to guess as to why in that moment, which I did because the other jurors asked why I thought it was important, I speculated that it was going to be some kind of emotional trial. That being said, the gender most likely to sympathize with that would be a woman – by nature alone.

As 9:15am rolls around, the jury still hasn’t been called out of the deliberation room to begin trial. I start to wonder if they had decided to settle. Regardless if they had settled, the jury would still be involved in determining the ultimate sentence if they had settled to a guilty verdict. It wasn’t long after I started trying to figure out what the delay was, that the bailiff came in and asked us to line up in order on the basis of how we were called to the jury box the day before.

I was – Juror 10, Ms. Magnet.

We filed into the courtroom where the judge tells us that some things have ultimately changed and how we were going to be proceeding was going to change. At 9am to 9:15am the lawyers and judge were in the courtroom discussing things. It was at that time, that the defense attorney and the defendant had decided to enter a plea of guilty. The defendant had to say that he changed his plea to guilty in front of the jury and for the record. He stood and took ownership of the guilty plea.

The jury was then told that we’d hear from some witnesses from both the state and the defense but that it wouldn’t be as long and drawn out as it would have been if he’d wanted the jury to decide his guilt or innocence. The judge then shared that our sole duty at this point was to listen to the evidence and make a decision on the punishment that came with his theft charge. Again, we had the option of 180days to 2years. And so it began.

The state forfeited the option to give an opening statement. This led me to believe that they felt like it was a waste of time, and as we learned more – they were right.

The defense attorney reminded me of a dirty used care salesman. When he had asked questions to the jury the day before, you got this sense that he was trying to pull something over on you, but since everything was so vague, you couldn’t put your finger on the exacts. It also surprised me that sitting beside the defense attorney during the jury selection, was the defendant. He never once looked up at the potential jurors. He never once spoke to his lawyer. Rather, he sat with his head hung low. It was indicative of sorrow, remorse, embarrassment and potentially guilt. I wasn’t being biased, I just found it to be odd that the lawyer would first have him present for this part of the process and second never once tell his defendant to sit up or become more engaging (i.e. look a little less guilty). None of that made sense until after we’d come to a decision on the sentence.

The defense stood and set the scene for this being an emotional trial and planted the seed that they’d later be asking the jury to take mercy on the defendant. He didn’t speak for long. He just made the defendant out to be a sad state of affairs. I didn’t buy it.

Once the opening statements were done, the state called their first witness. He was a Loss Prevention Manager for Fiesta Grocery Store on Web Chapel. His testimony was designed to show how the defendant had stolen groceries and he’d seen the entire thing. He said that the defendant was first in the beer aisle. He said he felt like the defendant was acting suspiciously – nervous of his surroundings, jittery. The manager followed him throughout the store as he continued to gather items like sausage and other meat products and place them in his basket. The manager had then witnessed the defendant walk right past the cash registers and out the front door. The manager went out after the defendant and stopped him before he could leave asking to see a receipt of sale on the unsacked groceries that were in the cart. The defendant, of course, could not as he had not purchased any of the items. The manager escorted the defendant back into the store and held him until the police arrived. He recounted that the defendant was extremely cooperative, didn’t put up a fight and was generally upset and remorseful that he’d been caught.

Once the state was done questioning the Fiesta Manager, the defense asked a few questions. Nothing too elaborate, but did manage to drop in a weird question. He asked the manager if that after the police arrived, were any of the items that the defendant had stolen been given to the defendant and/or the defendant’s fiancé? The manager had no idea if that was the case or not and could not speak against it or in its favor. He was dismissed from the stand, but stayed to see the results of the trial.

I found that to be a weird question. Why would Fiesta or the police for that matter press charges and arrest the guy for theft only to turn around and give him some of the stolen items for free. I was eager to find out if that was the case – because someone somewhere would be in serious trouble for that. But if it were true, I could see how it could play to jury sympathy – so as to say, look even the store and/or the police recognized the defendant’s dire situation. The seed was planted. I wasn’t watering it yet, but I definitely had the faucet turned on.

Next to the stand was the arresting police officer. She went through her account of the situation. She’d arrived, viewed the video tape of the defendant stealing the groceries, taken an inventory of those stolen items to come to a total value and then subsequently arrested the defendant on charges of theft. The total value of the items stolen was just under $100. Now, I know you are saying – $100? That’s not a felony. Why is this even in a felony courtroom? –All will be revealed very soon, as I thought the exact same thing at that exact moment. The state then asked her how the defendant was acting when she arrested him. She shared that he knew he was in big trouble this time and that this was not his first offense. The defendant also told the officer that he had several warrants out for his arrest on other unrelated charges. His legal situation was obviously getting progressively worse.

Once the state was satisfied with the police officers account, she was turned over to the defense. The defense attorney asked again, if any of the items were released to the defendant’s fiancé. The officer said that she felt badly for the guy. He hadn’t put up a fight, was very cooperative and knew he was in some serious trouble this time. The defendant had indicated to her that this was not his first theft arrest. Because of his story and how sad he looked, the officer allowed the defendant to stop by their residence on the way to jail to drop off his keys, cell phone and personal items that were in his pocket. Once his fiancé had those items, she took the defendant to jail. The defense attorney pressed in asking if she’d released any of the stolen groceries to the fiancé. The police officer looked plain appalled. She said she had not and that those grocery items were itemized and returned to Fiesta. While she admitted it was not procedure to allow someone who is being arrested to stop by home to drop off personal affects, she did not release any Fiesta items to either one of them. That was the last question for her from the defense and she was then excused. Make no mistake, this police officer was extremely sympathetic to the defendants situation and played a good witness for both the state and defense.

I got to wondering why the defense lawyer was stuck on asking everyone if some of the grocery items that had been stolen were given to the defendant and/or to his fiancé. The defendant had to have told his attorney that that happened. Which was a blatant lie, obviously. That made me not think too kindly of the defendant and furthermore it made me feel like he was not as innocent or remorseful as he was being made out to be. If it was concocted by his lawyer… well, that’s why you never use a court appointed attorney. Note to self…

The state rested on the accounts of the store manager and the police officers testimony. The defense only called one witness – the defendant. And here’s where the defendant deserved a Tony Award. I mean… really quite brilliant in his ignorance. By the end of it, I felt sorry for the guy but was not interested in leniency. The 9 males and 4 women as juror selections were becoming overwhelmingly clear to me at this point. But all the defense needed was 1 juror to buy it and to either hang the jury or at the very least make them compromise to a lesser sentence so as to not hang the jury on such a small theft case.

The state rested and enter the defendant’s moment of glory. The defense lawyer called the defendant to the stand.

He was a Hispanic man and if I had to guess, I would say he was easily in his late 50s. He was wearing a decent suit that didn’t fit as if it were anything well made. It didn’t surprise me that this man most likely has never owned a suit. He was missing several of his bottom teeth. I couldn’t tell if any were missing from the top. When he spoke, he did not have a Spanish accent. He didn’t have an accent at all. He was at times hard to understand because of his poor usage of the English language and what almost sounded like a slight speech impediment. I could not deduce if it was in fact an impediment or rather him talking around his missing teeth. It wasn’t significant to anything really, but it did successfully make you feel that much sorrier for the guy.

The defendant was sworn under oath and took the stand. Before the defendant even stated his name for the court, he began to cough slightly and clear his throat. His lawyer addressed him informally asking him if he needed something to drink.

Now here’s where if this was a movie or Broadway play, some unseen narrator would have said – and here’s where the tap dance begins.

The defendant says to his lawyer – No sir. Thank you though. I just have Diabetes and it makes my throat dry sometimes. I’ll be fine.

Ok, now in my head, I start to go… whhhhhat? That was an awfully convenient way to drop that in without having to outright ask about his health. If he had, I think it would have been a lot easier for the people on a jury to say – ok, really? They’re playing the “I’m sick” card – feel sorry before I even state my name. That’s some balls. Audacity, really. But ok, I guess you have to use what you have and make it work. If he even really had diabetes… I’ll never know.

His lawyer then asks him to explain what happened on July 1st 2009 when he was arrested at Fiesta on theft charges.

The defendant begins…
I haven’t been a good man. I have been an even worse father.

(At this point, he tears up, and stumbles through the rest of his recount pausing at moments to regain his composure, cry a little more, burry his face in his hands, and ask for tissues before continuing through his testimony. And truly, it was sad to watch – I’m not heartless, but I am fair.)

Over the last 5 years things have just gotten progressively worse. I have a job. I’m a truck driver. I make about $300 a week, when the work is steady. Right now, my fiancé and I are living in a motel paying rent week-to-week. Five years ago, my mother died. I never really recovered from that. It’s all been down hill from there. I have been trying to figure out a way to get my life back on track. I wanted to be a better father to my children. That’s when I had the idea to go to Fiesta and steal some food so that I could throw a small 4th of July barbeque for the kids. You know, to start over, fresh. It was a really dumb idea. I know it was wrong, but I still did it and I am willing to accept any punishment that I receive for my actions.

His lawyer starts to dig in deeper. He asks him to elaborate on how exactly it was that he came to the idea of stealing food from Fiesta in the first place.

The defendant says (still whimpering, crying) – I was next door at my neighbors place. We’d been drinking pretty heavily. I’ve been doing that a lot lately. I came up with the idea to try and have the kids over and start becoming a better dad. To be a person in their lives.

Lawyer – How’s your health as it stands right now?

Defendant (in almost a whisper) – Cancer. *then he paused, put his head in his hands and cried very hard*
>>I wasn’t even sure if I had heard him right? Did he say he has cancer now?

Defendant (after regaining some composure) – It doesn’t matter. I shouldn’t have done what I did. It was wrong and I will take any punishment I am given.

Lawyer – Did you say you have cancer?

Defendant – Yes. I have cancer. I was diagnosed with it back in February of 2009. I haven’t done anything about it because I have been trying to work and deal with all my diabetes doctor’s appointments. Soon enough, I was missing a lot of work, which I could not afford. I have no idea what stage I am even in right now?

Lawyer – Are you getting treatment in jail currently?

Defendant – Well sir, I had tried. I was supposed to be seeing a doctor, but they never took me to a hospital of any kind. They didn’t do my blood work and I felt like they were not interested in helping me. The other day, they said they were going to take me back to the doctor. I signed a sheet saying that I refused medical care telling them that the doctors they were sending me to were not helping and I was done with all of that. I later found out, that they had planned on taking me to Parkland to get tested and assessed. When I heard that, I tried to remove my refusal of medical treatment, but it’s a long process to do that. I have been in jail since July and I have not been treated for the cancer.

>>Ok, for the record – as the defendant was saying all of this, the judge laughed. He laughed so hard he was red in the face. He was laughing in total shock and dismay that this guy was even saying what he was saying. The states attorneys looked as if the Cancer proclamation was news to them too; hearing it for the very 1st time.

The defense lawyer got the point pretty quickly and steered the defendant in another direction. He wanted the defendant to start talking about the computer classes he had been taking while he was in jail this last time awaiting this trial.

Defendant – I have been taking computer classes and getting certifications. I wanted to better myself this time. I wanted to come out a better person. I wanted to turn my life around. The idea was to learn computers so I could buy one for my truck. So I could keep better track of my routes and loads, etc. I had hoped that when I was done serving this sentence that I would be able to buy my own truck. Be my own boss. Make a change.

>>Yeeeeah, right. Dude, you’re stealing $100 worth of groceries. You aren’t buying your own truck when you get out of here. Really?! Good Lord, this was getting out of control.

The defense lawyer asked a few more questions here and there that he knew would provoke tears and lengthy pauses so that his client could gather himself before continuing. And the honest truth of it all is that I believed some of what this guy had to say. I really did. I felt badly for him. Like he’d been dealt a bad hand and was making one bad decision on top of another. I don’t know if he was really sick with diabetes or cancer as no one proved it or to its contrary. Nonetheless, something happened to this guy. What? I wasn’t exactly sure. I wasn’t too naive to know that what he was telling wasn’t the whole story. There was a big part of me that felt like this guy knew exactly what he was doing and was attempting to milk the system. I, however had no evidence of that… yet.

After the defense was through, the defendant was turned over to the state for questioning. And here’s where all the warm and fuzzy feelings came to a screeching halt. The state’s attorney had zero sympathy for this guy. Almost to the extent that he’d seen and dealt with this guy before – possibly several times. I wasn’t sure yet as he hadn’t really asked any deep revealing questions, but his tone and demeanor was indicative of annoyance of having to be at this trial in the 1st place.

The states attorney then cuts the wound a little deeper. He shows the jury and the court 7 documents. Each of the 7 documents were prior arrests and guilty convictions for theft by the defendant stemming from 2007 to the current charge from July 1st 2009. In each offence, the defendant was caught stealing groceries at or around the $100 value mark. This is where the state explained to the defendant that repeat offenses of theft become felony charges, and that was why we were here today. He asked the defendant if he understood that and he said he did. I more think that it was the states way of letting the jury know why such a “small” offense was being seen in a felony court instead of a civil court.

The states attorney pressed into each offense and the repercussions of each offense. The 1st offense that was brought to felony court was in 2007. The defendant received a fine and 2years probation. He didn’t even make it off of probation before he was arrested for theft again. When he was arrested the 2nd time, they revoked the probation and sentenced him to the minimum sentence at that time of 120days in jail. Each offense there after, the defendant would claim guilt at the last minute, and offer the sentence up to a selected jury – a lot like the jury I was now sitting on. For the remaining 6 offenses, the defendant had received the minimum sentence of somewhere between 120days to 180days.

After the defendant readily acknowledged all those previous offenses with little coaxing, the states attorney asked him – when is enough, enough? The defendant resorted to his normal response of – I was wrong and I am sorry. I will accept any punishment that this jury sees fit. –When you think about it, this is really a non-response.

The states attorney asked the defendant if he knew about resources like Salvation Army that could help people in his situation; to give people an option to not steal.

Defendant (and here’s where my sympathy hit the edge of a 3million mile cliff) – Yeah, I know about those options. I have tried some before. I just didn’t like them. I didn’t want to use them.

States Lawyer – You knew about them and didn’t want to use them? Are you saying that you feel that stealing someone else’s property is a better solution? The only solution?

Defendant – No sir. I just couldn’t bring myself to ask for the help. I didn’t want to burden anyone.
>> Here’s where the defendant is now playing the – father with pride – card.

States Lawyer – How many people do you feel you have burdened here today, by having to bring this case before a judge?

The defendant offered no verbal response. Instead, he began to cry again muttering something about cancer, being wrong, owning up to it all… I’m not sure what he was saying at that point in time. With his speech impediment or lack of teeth, he was borderline unintelligible.

States Lawyer – Are these 7 offenses that I have presented here today in court the only times you have been arrested?

Defendant – No sir. I was arrested when I was 16.

States Lawyer – For theft?

Defendant – Yes sir, but I was just a kid.

States Lawyer (not even gracing the “kid” comment with a rebuttal) – Have you ever been arrested in other states?

Defendant – No sir.

States Lawyer – You’ve never been arrested in Georgia for larceny?

Defendant – What’s larceny, sir?

States Lawyer – It’s a fancy word for theft.

Defendant – Oh, yes sir. I was arrested for that in Georgia. I didn’t understand what you were asking.

States Lawyer – Can you tell the court about that incident?

Defendant (after a long pause, placing his head in his hands and crying again) – It was just stupid sir. It wasn’t right and I was just stupid. There’s not much more to say about it other than that. I was stupid.

Even though the defendant didn’t even begin to try and answer that question, the states lawyer’s point was made. It’s not about the 7 times you have been arrested in Texas; that we know about, but more-so the fact that this is a pattern not limited to the last 5 years of things going downhill in Texas. The states lawyer didn’t even press him further to give more details and not hide behind a cop-out response. He’d done what he’d come to do and that was discredit all the crying and emotional antics.

States Lawyer – How is it that you want this jury to believe you when you say you’re sorry? That you won’t do this again. How many times and to how many juries have you said that this is the last time? Why are we to believe you this time?

Defendant – This time sir, I am taking classes while I am in here. I want to be a better person when I get out. That’s the difference, sir.

I found that hard to believe. What I did believe is his defense attorney saying – oh shit man. This is number 8 on the theft charges. I’m not sure the crying act will work again this time. We’re going to have to do better than that. We’ll need cancer. How can you argue cancer? You can’t. Yes, we’ll have cancer. OH and you’ll need to take some classes while you are in there. You’ll be in there for a bit awaiting trial you might as well sneak in some computer courses. Oh yeah, yeah… that’s good. This could work.

At one point, while the state was questioning the defendant, the defendant said that he had only tried to steal from Fiesta because he really thought he could get away with it. That it wasn’t until he was caught that he’d even reconciled that the decision was a stupid one. That admission did not sit well with me in the least bit.

The states attorney had a few more questions that were relatively inconsequential but further elaborated the fact that the defendant had no intention of changing his behaviors.

The state then rested and closing arguments began. The defense lawyer was first.

He was as brief in his closing as he was in his opening statement. He leaned on the fact that the defendant was taking classes this time. That the defendant wanted to be better and make a change in his life. He then closed his statement by begging the jury to take mercy on his client and show him some leniency.

The states attorney stood up and without sugar coating one thing reiterated that the defendant was a repeat offender. He nothing short of accused the defendant of being manipulative and calculated in his defense. He brought out the 7 previous convictions and went through each one again. He pressed the fact that the defendant had had minimum sentences for all of his previous convictions. He highlighted that there was an infinite amount of people who had been down in the dumps and had not resorted to theft as the solution. He asked the jury how much did we want to spend out of pocket to let people like the defendant believe that what he was doing was acceptable. He then ended with the line – And really… when is enough, enough?

By 10:38, the decision had been handed over to the jury for deliberation on the sentencing. I felt like the decision was simple and that the deliberation would take nothing more than 1 quick vote and we’d be on our way back to our own lives… work.

How wrong could one person be? The intricacies of a jury’s deliberation to reach a decision agreed upon by 12 people was a whole different story.