Today was jurur instructions and closing arguments. We were given the case around 11:40am. We get back to the jury room, and nobody is wanting to be foreman. Finally, Jurur #3 voluneers. He joked, he could shave his head, in case D got out. Others joked that, being an air marshal, at least he has a gun. #3 later said, he thought it was open/shut/slamdunk case of guilt. Hence the comment.

So the charges were:
[editorial. Not sure of exact phrasing of charges. So, lawyers, forgive me]
1 - Assualt with a Deadly Weapon. Once with the sports trophy. Another with the plunger. We had to vote Guilty/Not guilty on the charge. Yes or no on each of the weapons. If voted not guilty, we could vote guitly on a lessor charge of Simple Assault.

2 - Prevention of victim or witness from contacting authorities. [editorial note: The majority of the juror heard this read in pre-trial as "witness tampering", and were wondering when they were going to talk about it. I, myself kept asking that, and wondering why the P kept harping about the stupid phone incident]. So the phone incident was charged as hampering a witness or victim from calling the police.

4- Assault with intent of serious bodily harm

[Note- no charge 3. Judge said not to read into that. It's a clearical thing. I'm guessing one of the charges got excluded during pre-trial]

Before lunch, we took a quick vote, to see how much debating we had to do. All votes were slips of paper, anonymous. We had 3 not guilty to all charges. And then a mix of Guilty/Not Guilty between the charges. Foreman was a bit shocked by the results. And at that time, the Baliff said it was lunch, and we had to leave the room for 90 minutes. No discussing the case outside of the room.

When we got back, foreman wanted to start with count 1, and talk about ADW charges. I suggested we pause, and actually take a vote, if we felt the D acted in self defense. Sure enough, that was issue. The votes were all over the place (the first two votes were tallied in foremans book, so I don't have those counts).

So we looked at the juror instructions, at the legal definitions for self defense and mutual combatants (I think that was the phrase). We discussed how each version of the story was different. How each brother, at some point, (re)-initiated violence. Then it felt like we were all on the same page, so I proposed we vote on if we feel self defense is acceptable as the defense. Saying, if we all think no, then it will be easier to discuss counts 1 & 4. The vote for "Self defense, yes or no" came out as 8 for no, and 2 for yes, and which point we stopped counting, because we need 100%. We continued to discuss. And 15 minutes later, we took another vote. One of the no votes admitted, she misunderstood what a yes or no vote was. So we voted again. This time "Mutual Combatants or Self Defense". 100% vote for Mutual Combatants.

With that out of the way, and the discussions from it, it turned some of the pre-lunch folks minds, and 5 minutes later, we voted on count 4, bodily harm. 100% guilty.

We spent the next 15 minutes or so looking over the definition for ADW, and what constitues a deadly weapon. And that the law doesn't require injury from the weapon, just the threat and attempt to use it. We discussed the potential damage the base of the trophy could do. And that, even though no real blows landed from it, it had potential to do great harm, and it was admitted to being used by the D in his direct testimony. We voted on ADW for the trophy, and found guilty.

Next we talked about the plunger. Most of the discussion was the same as with the trophy. The difference being, the plunger actually did damage to the crown of the V head. We kinda laughed that a plunger is a deadly weapon, but found him guilty of that count as well.

Lastly we debated count 2, preventing the reporting of a crime by a witness or victim. I think I left out of previous post the D discussion on this. I bring it up, as most of us actually believed his version of the story. D answered this on cross (continued...)

( continues...) examination from the P. The P was pestering on this topic. Puzzling most of us jurors. The D was getting really frustrated. And said it was nothing. He was mad at how the V grabbed the phone from their M, so he grabbed the hone from V, and then threw it out of the way. It was a 2 second, triple possession. No thinking. Just reacting. So in deliberation, foreman said, he felt it was the P piling on the counts. So we took a vote, and came up 11-1 for guilty. Ugg. Almost. So I try and be diplomatic. I say, (paraphrase) "Ok, well, this is an anynomous vote. Given that there is one voting guilty, we will need to hear that persons views. Keep in mind, everyone, we aren't going to be judgemental, we need to be open to this persons concerns. Hear them. And talk about them. Of course, that means, the dissenting vote will need to out themselves...." At which point the one gal said "wait, I think I misunderstood what the vote was. Is grabbing the phone guilty? Because he grabbed the phone. It was part of the fight." So spent a few minutes making sure we all understood that "not guilty" vote meant he grabbed the phone in anger, and "guilty" meant he grabbed the phone with malice to prevent calling the police. And at that vote, we came with 100% not guilty.

We filled out the paperwork. And then I wanted to make sure we were 100%. There were a couple folks who didn't say much in the deliberations. And then a couple confusions in voting. So I wanted to make sure we are all in agreement. And a few of the other jururs agreed, that we need to make sure we are all on the same page, since we are basically voting to send someone to prison for a long time. And we went around the room and concurred with Guilty on the assault charges, and Not Guilty on the preventing reporting a crime.

We call the clerk to inform her, we are ready. Half hour later, we get the call to return to the court room. Clerk reads the verdicts (mispronouncing the D & V names! Repeatedly). D had no reaction. Judge thanked us for our service, and released us back to the jury pool room. There, we got our parking validated, and our certificates for HR. And that was it.

Dunno anyone's name in the jury. Kinda strange. Just spent the better part of 3 days with these people, and I don't know any of their names.

Outside, one of the jurors came up to me. He's a retired chemistry professor. He thanked me. Said I really helped him with the decisions. That the way I kept steering the conversation, to attack each item on a point by point basis. And that step by step determination helped make the decisions.

We all pretty much agreed (no vote, just chatting while filling in the paperwork) that both brothers should really be charged. But we couldn't do anything about it. That once we determined it was Mutual Combat, that the assualt charges fell into place. And the defense "well, he started it", and "well he used it on me first" didn't make him innocent.

Can you tell us how it was decided?

Ha. Long cross post. Yup.

OK, that's the bulk of the case. I'm sure I missed some details. Thankfully I kept my notes, and the vote tallies that I recorded.

On the whole, it was a good experience. I understand why everyone wants to ditch jury duty. Especially if work doesn't pay for it, or dings you vacation or sick days or something. But I found it very interesting. Of course, I do watch a lot of procedural tv shows, and grew up reading murder mystery novels. So, YRMV.

Fascinating. Sounds like you were crucial in getting a decision out of that jury. Good job, you!

We kinda laughed that a plunger is a deadly weapon

What, were there no Doctor Who fans in the room?

What, were there no Doctor Who fans in the room?

unless you mean the Daleks?

[link]

Totally fascinating, omnis. I did jury duty last year and found it hard, and weighty, and emotionally intense, especially the deliberations (everyone at once bone-naked truthful and totally anonymous and having to trust both your own and everyone else's thought process), and you describe all of that so vividly.

It's eerie, and moving, how deeply seriously everyone takes it all once it starts; we all roll our eyes at the the prospect of getting stuck with jury duty but the reality - the gravity of your discussion and your choices being the deciding factors in the course of a total stranger's life - is slightly terrifying.

Fascinating, and upsetting. Jury duty really is an important responsibility. And tough.

Also, as an aside as M, I am glad I never allowed the boys to get physical with each other in fights. The boys will be boys thing is complete crap to me, and I heard it way too often. No, violence is never acceptable. A great number of 'friends' have suggested that what boys need is to be pummeled by dad on occasion too. Um NO, not ever under any circumstances. Way too many people seem to think that violence is somehow normal behavior, and I just don't get or accept that.

Often sitting alone in the extreme pacifist corner. And somehow my bestie is a HUGE boxing fan. I keep trying to explain to her that my issue is that they hit each other. We go out for drinks at the sports bar on Friday night and sit with her facing the boxing screen and me facing baseball or something. We accept that we will never understand each other. But we won't fight about it!!!