At first I couldn't believe how poorly run the Pierce County jury duty room was run. Then, by the end of the week I was a case! Then two weeks later GOING to jury duty I totalled out my Toyota Corolla RIGHT in front of the court house on an accident that was ALL my fault. Then a week after that I'm rolling around in the nicest car I've ever owned a BRAND NEW 2015 Subaru Impreza which was TOTALLY decked out with heated leather seats, GPS navigation, a moon roof, and a sound system that lets me hook my Ipod up to the my car radio with crystal clear sound via a USB chord. THEN two and a half weeks after that I'm part of a 12 man group that's rendering a verdict in an armed robbery case that left one man dead!
O, and did I tell you, I'm a TOTAL VIRGIN as pertains to the legal system; this was my FIRST expericence going before a superior court judge. And guess what? I handled it all masterfully!
The first couple days of jury duty were a COMPLETE JOKE for me. I sat in a room with about 70 other people and the only excitement was the jury duty people taking roll call about 10 to 12 times. It was ridiculous. And the only reason I showed up at all was that on their on-line link I was told to come in, but when I used their phone service I was told my group did not have to report. Confused, I decided to "play it safe" and just show up so their was no way they could fine me or something like that. When I did "show up" I was given the option of straying or leaving. Since I was there, I decided to stay for the day. Bad decision. No action. Just roll calls from 9 a.m. untill arround 2:30 p.m. it was just rediculous.
But on Wednesday I was called back into jury duty and I read a short document on a case that was coming up. It was an armed robbery case and on it was about 200 names of people. Since I didn't recoginze any of them, when I signed the copy and turned it in I was on to the next round...
On Friday of that week I actually got to go to Pierce County courtroom there I met the defendant in the case and I was screen along with 30 other potential jurors. Lead by two lawyers: a state prosecutor and a defence lawyer; we got to talking about broad issues like racial prejudice, and memory. I scored BIG points when I raised my hand and brought out the fact that I thought BOTH lawyers failed to see the impact of shock memory, as I sited the shock of the Super Bowl when Russell Wilson threw that interception that in essence ended the game. The deffensive attorney jumped at the inference, asking me to recall what I remembered, which I did: the pass was intended for Riccardo Lockette, and the Patriot defender who intercepted the pass was named Darius Butler. THAT subject got the whole court room abuz. And when questioned by the defence attorney about something else I let him change what I said then agree with his conclusion giving him the false impression that I could be verbally manipulated. Anywho, the judge called out 15 names, I was the last name called. For a court case they ONLY take 12 jurors, in this case 3 of us were considered "alternates". Since I was the last name called I figued I was the last alternatnate, but that assumption was never confirmed nor dennied.
As for taking part as a juror and getting to listen, and ulitmately deliberate with 11 other jurors to reach a verdict on this case I learned A LOT.
Before the trial began the defensive attorney did something that made a HUGE impression on my very impressionable psyche; he made us look him and the deffendant in the eye and say that the deffendant was an innocent man. "Innocent untill proven guilty."
When I looked the defendant in the eye and repeated what the defence attorney made us plead, I believe it. I really gave the deffendant the benefit of the doubt. I thought, if the deffence attorney is THIS adimant about his client's innocence, he must really be innocent of the charges that were being levied against him which were: murder in the first degree, armed robbery, and special use of violent force.
So what was this case about? Easy, a group of people drove up to a family's house under the pretence of buying a ring that they had learned about from a Craig's List add, and then they proceeded to change the terms by pulling a gun on the man and woman of the house and attempting to rob them off all their valuables. While doing this they put zip ties on the writs of the husband and wife. Two more members of the robbers went upstais and brought their 10 and 14 year old male children downstairs. When one of the criminals put a gun to man's wife's head and started doing countdowns wanting to know the combination of their safe, the woman's husband lost it when one of the criminals kicked the woman in the head. Breaking free of his tie wrap he proceeded to punch the guy who had kicked his wife in the head. He in turn got shot, drug in the living room and shot two more times. The oldest boy tried to fight one of criminals and got cold cocked with a one of the guns. After the shooting all four criminals left the house, and then the family called 911.
The head of the house ending up dying. We jurors actually got to hear a mortians explaination of his autopsy. The pulled three bullets from the man. All from the same gun. The kill shot was shot the heart. The other shots were survible ones to the knee and buttocks.
All three surviving members of family were called to the stand and gave their testimory as to what happened that night. I truthfully attest that the now fifteen-year-old boy who had to try to remember what he saw when he was only 10 and this happened, then was made mince meat of by the deffence lawyer was BY FAR the hardest thing for us jurors to cope with. When we got back to the jury room one black female juror was in tears. I was moved to, but I managed to put a lid on it. When you see a 15 year-old-boy try to remember DETAILS from a highly taumatic event from five years prior and get turned arround by a very smart lawyer it is moving, deeply moving.
I couldn't belive how poorly the mother and wife who had gone though this hellish ordeal handled herself on the stand. Even five years removed from the event she went off, all the jurors were called back to the jury room, and it wasn't untill a week later that she resumed her testiomony. I think the day she went off was the day that I totalled my Corolla. Anywho...
Most days at court were filled with brief witnesses: police officers who responded to the scene, cell phone company reps for the records of the cellphones that the villains were using that night, seveal pawn shop employees, because these villains were trying to sell the murder weapon, the husband who died wedding ring, the wife who lived wedding ring, and even the kids' video game Playstation.
The defendant in the case was considered to be the 4th accomplace that the other three brought in late. According to the story we were given after the crime all the criminals were in the same car and they drove the 4th accomplice back to his home some 30 miles north of the crime scene.
Later the group of three fled to California, there a patrol officer pulled the car over for not having a licence plate on the front of the vehicle. Then when one of the three started acting squrirrey the officer became suspcious, did a search of the vehicle, found marijuana, and then all three went to jail. From there a broader search was made and someone there made the connection of the possibiltity that two of these three fit descriptions from a crime scene in Washington.
Tracking down the 4th suspect took some time, but eventually one of three squeeled and they got a concrete name of the 4th suspect which lead to a statewide manhunt. TV crews even got involved, as a reporter visited the home of the 4ht suspect and confronted the 4th suspect's mother and her daughters.
According to the victimized family the 4th suspect was one of two masked, African Americans who went upstairs and brought the two kids down to the kitchen where their mother and father were being held. All three surviving members of the victimized family alleged that it was this 4th supspect who escalated the violence as he held a gun to the back of the mother's head and did countdowns as he demanded to know the combination of their home safe.
When the guy holing a gun to back of the woman's head kicked her in the head, the husband lost it. He broke free of his constraints and proceeded to fight agains the robber who kicked his wife in the head. That lead to him being shot. An autopsy report confirmed that the husband was shot three times with the fetal shot being to his heart. There was a cartlidge rip on his ear as well that I THINK was made by the killshot bullet.
The state prosocuter trotted out a lot of people to make their case including three members very close to the defendant: his mother, his mentally challenged teenage sister, and his girlfriend at the time. All of the these witnesses knew the defendant quite well. The defendant lived at home with his mother and sister, and was in constant contact with his girlfirend, as evidence by the cell phone records that were made privy to.
From these three witnesses I expected to learn a lot about the defendant, but each witnessed said very little and to me appeared to be uncoperatrive, siting that after five years they "coudn't remember" details surrounding the 4th defendant at that time. The state had each of these witnesses reffer back to documents and claims they had made earlier, but NONE of these reports were admitted as evidence so that we the jury could refer back to them and come a fuller understanding of what these witnesses did and did not know.
But sometimes it's what you don't say that speaks volumes. All three of these witnesses had a chance to give the defendant an alibi for what he was doing at the time this crime against this family was being committed--and NONE of them did! The closest thing that came to albi came from the defendant's girlfriend who said that her boyfriend had gone out for money, and that in times past a former girlfriend had given him money. That possibility, however, was NEVER PURSUED by either the state or the deffence. Nor was that girlfirend's name or residence that the time disclosed.
Be very leery of a man charged with a crime who's deffencs attorney tries to use a "John Doe" deffense. Throughout the trial I kept waiting and waiting to hear the defendants side of the story--but it never came! Upfront it was told to us that the defendant didn't have to take the stand and try to explain himself, and he didn't! I don't know why a person wouldn't do that IF they were indeed innocent of charges as serisous as being an accomplice to murder, and armed robbery.
As the school of practical experience taught me, there is some validity to the term "cracking the case." What I found in this court case was that the deffence attorney was trying to slip past us the fact that he NEVER accounted for where his client was at the time of the crime. When cellphone evidence was presented and it was CLEARLY shown that the defendant was talking to fellow purpatrators in the hours after the crime. After they had lelf the scene where they left a shot victim. Through cell tower locations it was shown that minutes before the crime the defendant was having a conversation with his girlfirend, and that his cell phone was "pinging" at tower right next to the victimized family's house, he had some explaining to do. But the deffense attorney only challeged the credibitlity of cellphone locating technology. Big mistake. But then if your client really was at the site at the time of the crime, what do you do, lie?
That's ultimate conclusion I drew, nobody could give the defendant a credible alibi because doing to risked cross examination by the state at which time the fasle alibi would be discreditied because it was false--the defendant really was at the scene of the crime when it was in process of happening.
In order to have a trial, I came to the conlcusion, that the defense had to be given a few things: the defedant could never be directly questioned where he was at the time of the crime. It was up to the jury to call the bluff of this charade. And this wasn't an obvious thing. The pace of the trial was given over to the defense. Right after the ONE witness who spoke on behalf of the defendant, which was another living at the house, both attorneys went into closing arguements--that same day, and the next day jury deliberations started. This quick pace only gave us jurors the night to consider the case as a whole, which to me was the whole reason it was only an initial 7-5 vote in favor of the state's case.
And why was that? I think it's beause the deffense attorney set us up from the very beginning that his client was innocent. I mean he looked us all in the eye daring us not to profess his clinent's innocence. Based on his firm resolve, I was thinking to myself somehow this guy must be innoncent.
When we got to deliberation, a lot of jurors didn't think there was enough concrete evidence to convict other than the cell phone records, which were pretty much rock solid. In the case it was suggested that the police did dust for fingerprints, but were NEVER told the result of those inquiries. Due to this, several jurors actually thought the police did a shotty job. But after this all ened and we finally arrived at a ununamous, 12 person decison of guilty: guilty of being an accomplice to murder, armend robbery and unneccary cruelty to this family; I aske the judge why the previous records of the defendants mentally challenged sister was NOT ADMITTED as evidence that we the jurors could have considered and he told me it was because the lawyers did come into an agreement to admit the evinence.
As I leared from first hand exerience, even in a high stakes case, jurors may not get all the availble evidence. I didn't get to see key records that would have definately influenced my descion on this case.
In opening arguements the defense attorney took a pre-emtive strike siting numbers to recuced off two accomplices sentences IF they took the stand and gave tesitmony in this case. One those two was the friend that allegedly brought the defendant into the group, the other was the woman who was said to be the mastermind of this crime.
Neither of these two key people took the stand, and the jurors were never told why. Not sure if they rejected the states plea deal, OR if later as the case went on the state withdrew their offer.
As far as the juror deliberations went, we started out with a 7-5 vote of guilty. Then night after both lawyers had their closing arguements I prayed to the Lord to guide me which was I should vote. When I woke up the next morning, I had peace rending a guilty verdict. I went into juror deliberations ready to vote guilty but I still had an open mind to be swayed--IF another juror had a compelling argument for the defendant being innoncent. Nobody did. Most jurors felt they needed more than the irrefutable cellphone records. But in the end everyone came around...
A couple jurors really suprised me. One girl who was quiet throughout became quite vocal durring the 1 and half days we deliberated the case. I found out she was working on her master's degree in educuation, and she was indeed quite smart and bright. And then their was school teacher who had the GREAT idea of having a homosexual juror who was on the fence, work her issues out on a dry erase board in front of us all. And it worked! Eventually this outspoken person came around and changed her vote to guilty.
Durring deliberations I learned something about the human condition, and that's when a group of people take the painstaking journey to find man guilty of some pretty henious crimes in the end they DON'T want to know all the details about him, but rather want to distance themselves from that foul person. How do I know that? Well-p, towards the end when our deliverations were winding down and their was only one guy left on the fence, I asked the group what we really knew about the defendant. And guess what--I got booed down!
In the end, someone had to tell me it wasn't the defendant who shot the head of the house dead it was another one of the criminals. But in the end, it didn't matter. All that mattered was PROVING that the defendant was one of the four, and then he basically was guilty of all charges. So we ended up rending a guilty verict.
After the trial ended the mother who endured this trajedy and many members of her extended family were waiting to greet the 12 jurors of this trial. They gave us a heros welcome. I talked briefly with them thanking the mother for her youngest son's courage to TRY to tell his side of the story when it was obviously hard for him to do so. And I explained the scarf I wore every day I was in court; it was the same style scarf Andie Anderson wore in a scene from the movie "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days". To my great suprise MOST of the family got the reference.
One postscript to my jury duty experience was that it wasn't untill later that day, that the magnitude of this trajedy really ripped my heart apart and I started crying in private. It's just so sad that this CLEARLY guilty man subjected the surviving members of this family to relive the events of that night in April of 2010. It's like a serious crime was committed then, and then now with the retelling of that story the wounds were re-opened and another crime was committed.
My heart goes out to that family who suffered so greatly. I'll be praying for them for the rest of my life. And as for the 4th member of that band of robbers, I'll be praying for him too. He needs to come to repentance and write a letter asking that lady that he put a gun to the back of head, for forgiveness. No, he can't undo what was done, BUT he can help them heal. And to do so he's going have to be honest with himself and admit that he really wronged this family and needs to seek their forgiveness.
We all make mistakes. Some bigger than others. Be irregaurdless of how great our error, later when we come to our senses we can still do the right thing. The defendant in the case I heard needs to do the right thing, he needs to stop worrying about his reputation and start caring about the family that he had intrical part in destroying.
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA