Jury Duty

Wow! What a rough week!!!!This week, teachers came back to school to a mess of technology, training, meetings and workshops. As the 'technology' person, I've had to try to meet the needs of the teachers in between my own required trainings and meetings. Then to top it all off, I was called to jury duty on Thursday. I felt pretty confident that I would not be called. I honestly felt that I wouldn't...After all, I'm educated and do know about how our judicial systems work. I am NOT a peer to most of these 'alleged' criminals. Boy was a surprised that I was chosen.

THE PROCESS:
Teaching Civics and feeling pretty well versed about our judicial system does NOT prepare you for the actual serving on a jury. I'm not sure anything can. My day started off pretty good. I was nervous because I wasn't sure where I was supposed to go. I got up at my usual time. I decided that I'd look professional. I wanted to present myself as the intelligent person I am...remember...I didn't think I'd be chosen because I am a professional. I head downtown to the City Courthouse and was met by 2 deputies. I was asked if I was there for jury duty and told where to go. Once I arrived, I had to give my name and was told where to sit. Walking into the court room, I couldn't help but wonder, "How much information do the attorneys and other officials know about me?" "Did they do a background check on me?" The defendant was brought in. He looked very sad and possibly in another situation was a nice person. The attorneys came in and then the judge. The judge introduced himself and the attorneys then described the process of juror selection. He read a list of questions in which we had to verbally answer yes or no. "If we were citizens of the Commonwealth, were we over the age of 18...." Then the defense attorney stood up and asked questions. "Did we know about this case?" "Did we have any relatives on the police force?" "Did we know any attorneys in Staunton or anywhere else?" "Did we have a family member the victim of a crime?" I answered yes to 2 questions and KNEW I would not be chosen. The man beside me was the victim's neighbor and knew all the people involved. The woman next to me is an alcoholic and asked to be dismissed because she could not render an impartial decision since alcohol was the defense's main explanation for the shooting. The questions went on for about an hour then the attorneys huddled together and submitted a list to the judge. One name was called, another, and another...I was almost home free! I had a 1 in 50 chance my name was going to be called!!!! The odds were in my favor. NOPE, "Karen Stinson" was called. I almost said, "You've got to be kidding!"

THE TRIAL:

OMG!! My brother has always told me that trials are NOTHING like they are on TV. TV gives us a false sense of how things should be. On TV everything moves fast and is packed with excitement and always a 'surprise'. Not in real life. Attorneys are dry and boring. The presentation of evidence is dry and boring. Police officers and forensic witnesses can't tell us what they saw. For example, questioning to the crime scene technician, "What does this photo indicate?" Answer:"It appears to be a red dot on the pillowcase." Question: "What is this mark on the wall?" Answer: "An indentation which is about an inch in diameter and 4ft from the ground." First, the red dot was blood, and the indentation was a bullet hole. BUT apparently, they can't tell us that. Jurors have to make that determination!!!! Ridiculous!

For two grueling days, we listened to witnesses testify. We listened to attorneys argue over stupid stuff and we were shuffled in and out of the court room as they continued to argue. It was actually comical. I was happy to see the defense doing something. Their defense was weak and we all felt that they could have done a better job. But we also suspected that we don't know what evidence was allowed to be submitted and what evidence was not permitted. That is the thing about court. Jurors don't hear all the evidence and we have to base our decision on what we have.

THE VERDICT:

Wow is all I can say. This part of jury duty hits you like a ton of bricks. I NOW have to make the determination if this man is guilty or innocent. That is pretty powerful. Think about it. I now have to decide the future of this other human being. As I said earlier. In another place and time, this man might have been a nice guy but unfortunately, his actions and bad choices caused a horrible tragedy.

First, the defense wanted us to decide that this man was soooo drunk he could not make any rational decisions. The evidence just didn't support that. Yes, he was drunk. Yes, I believe he is an alcoholic. Yes, all the victims were drunk too. Yes, two of the victims were convicted felons. BUT, the defendant was not unrational as defined by the State of Virginia. He had to have been drop down, sloppy drunk, staggering. The defendant was not. So based on the evidence, we dismissed the defense's claim that the defendant didn't know what he as doing. Second, the defense wanted us to find that the defendant was protecting himself because he had just been beat up. True, this younger boy had beat him up but the evidence proved that the altercation was over. The 2 brothers were in the kitchen cleaning up. The defendant was going out to his car to look for his cell phone to call someone to come pick him up. While out there he found a pistol and decided to take it back in the house "for protection". Here is where the Commonwealth wanted us to decide that this was premeditated murder. I struggled with this thinking that premeditated included a long period of time such as a day. NOPE, not according to the directions the judge gave us. Premeditation has no time frame. The defendant went out to his car, found the gun, went back into the house and went to the kitchen and shot the victim in the back of his head. We found him guilty of 1st Degree Murder as well as 3 other charges.

Here is where the emotion comes in. After we made this decision, I wanted to throw up. I have NO reasonable doubt it was premeditated...and I do NOT regret my decision but it was still tough! I started shaking uncontrollably as an emotional release and didn't stop until we left. I shook as the verdict was being read and tried hard to hide it.

THE SENTENCING:

Believe it or not, this is the part of the process where, we jurors actually argued. During the verdict stage, we all rationally poured over the evidence and testimony. We discussed the evidence like normal human beings. The verdict was not as nice. We didn't yell at each other but we had some pretty strong opinions. Although we did not believe that the defendant was so drunk he was not able to make rational decisions, we do believe that alcohol was a factor in all of this. We believed that every one in that house was culpable for what occurred. So how could we balance the severity of the crime with a fair sentence. We came to a consensus and recommended 40 years in addition to 5 years for attempting to wound the brother, 3 years (max. allowed by the state) for using a gun in a murder, and 5 years for unlawful wounding (shooting the mother/girlfriend). Thankfully he must serve the full 40 years. If he every gets out of jail he would be 108 if the sentences run consecutively. If they are concurrent, he would be 98 and possibly no threat to society.

CONCLUSIONS:
Court is not fun no matter how you slice it or which side you sit on. Jury duty is emotional and stressful. Words just cannot explain the feelings you have. It is a huge responsibility which I'm not sure we really understand until we are there. We think, "Yeah, it is cut and dry...this person is as guilty as sin." It isn't. But thankfully, there are guidelines to follow and evidence and testimony to view. I now have a better appreciation of the the struggle the Casey Anthony jury went through. The evidence just wasn't there to support her guilt. Believe me, those jurors did NOT make their decision lightly. Gosh I'm tired!