Fortunately, I got a permanent exemption from jury duty.
Well jury duty is over. I even voted not guilty for the black guy! But I originally was the only one who voted guilty so I guess I'm only half racist. The whole thing played out almost exactly like you see on TV; judge, calling witnesses, rising, sitting, boring as all hell, lawyers talking over witnesses, trying to play "gotcha!" games with the witnesses, becoming slightly hostile with the witnesses. The only thing that was out of place from a typical courtroom movie was the bailiff was an unarmed 70 year old woman who probably weighed all of 90 pounds. TV tells me it should have been an armed 300 pound black man who would have been ready to beat you over the head with his club if you looked at the judge wrong.
Anyways, the whole experience sure did open my eyes as to why so many people literally get away with murder.
So the story was basically a wife, her ex husband and her new husband. Wife claims court order says if ex husband is 20 minutes late picking up his kids for his week then he forfeits that week and wife says that's exactly what happened, ex says that didn't happen and he showed up at her house to serve her with family court papers for denying him time with his kids. Ex husband admits he tore the doorbell out but other than that was calm when he showed up with the papers, wife says he was banging on the door and windows and called the cops, ex husband waited for cops, they served her the papers, blah blah blah.
Ex husband then shows up at the new husband's apartment, parks right behind the husband while he's in his vehicle, and all sides admit this much. Where they don't agree is the husband claims he opened his door to ask what the ex husband wanted so the ex husband gets between the door and the husband and starts punching him in the face then walks back towards his car, husband gets his gun out from under his seat (he's legally allowed to carry this weapon) and steps outside and watches the ex husband because he thinks the ex went back to the car to get a weapon, so he's standing there letting him know "No, I got a gun bitch."
Ex husband claims he went there looking for his kids so he's cupping his hands on the husband's vehicle's windows to see if his kids are in there, the husband gets out of his car and is yelling and saying shit like "What the fuck do you think you're doing"? and he comes at him aggressively so acting in self defense the ex husband punches him a few times. The ex husband admits he left before the cops got there, didn't call the police to report "being attacked" by the husband, and admits he refused to cooperate or give any statement to the police.
The ex husband admits he went over to the husband's apartment after he served his wife the papers, admits he parked behind the guy's vehicle, admits he was touching the guy's car and even admits to punching the guy, but it was all in "self defense."
Then you have the jurors. A young woman who wants to go to law school, not even making this up, she said all of maybe a dozen words all day. Then you have the wannabe cop (again not making this up, he says he's training to become a police officer) and the first thing he says when we go back to deliberate is "If a guy says he's going to 'kick your ass' then that alone gives you the right to act in self defense and punch the other guy."
I'm just sitting there shaking my head listening to these 4 people talk about how the guy isn't guilty because of this and that and I'm just like okay guys whatever. So they decide to take a vote because they figure everyone already agrees and you can tell the quiet law school student just voted not guilty because everyone else voted not guilty then I was the only one to vote guilty.
So I'm explaining how it's a bullshit theory that this guy went over to this guy's apartment, is getting all up in his shit, admits he's emotional because of the custody thing, punches the guy a few times, and then claims self defense. Then they start arguing that "Well it's not really assault because the guy had hardly any bruises." I'm like what the fuck? Granted the guy didn't have two black eyes, a broken nose, a fractured jaw and blood pouring down his face but we can clearly see from the pictures that he's bleeding and has cuts and bruises.
Everyone is going over what they think and the foreperson asks the quiet law chick what she thinks and she says "I don't know" and the foreperson says "Well then you have to vote not guilty if you don't know." WHAT?! Nothing like, well what don't you know, what evidence shall we go over, what are you confused about, just "Well if you just zoned out for 2 hours and don't know then vote not guilty."
Then the wannabe cop is like "I just can't see putting someone in jail for doing such minor damage to someone." Come on man, get off the "It's not that much damage." He either assaulted the guy or he didn't, the extent of his injuries means shit. Then you could tell all of them started suffering from CSI effect because they start saying shit like well there's not enough evidence, they didn't say this, they didn't say that, then the wannabe cop says "Well this sounds like a case of he said/she said with no real proof so in this situation you always have to vote not guilty." I seriously wanted to start smacking everyone at this point. After the judge rattled off for like 20 minutes both before and after the trial explaining it's up to us to decide the facts of the case, it's up to us to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth, they are all sitting here saying "Well we have no choice because it's a he said/she said situation!"
Then they started going back to the "It's not that big a deal, we should let him go" then this supposed nurse had the nerve to say "With everything you're hearing in the news lately about what's happening to black men this seems like such a small issue to even worry about." Like....WHAT?!
So I spent like 10 minutes trying to convince them that the extent of injuries inflicted has no basis on whether or not assault was committed. They finally seemed to let go of that bullshit. Then I again tried to explain how absurd it was that this man went over there to "see his kids" then claimed he attacked the husband in self defense and one of them said well the husband had a gun and I said yeah but the ex husband didn't say whether or not he saw the gun then I started thinking...well the ex probably knows the husband owns a gun so I guess if I took the ex's side of the story and he's cupping his hands on the guy's vehicle and the guy gets out and starts yelling at him I guess I could probably see how the guy might have felt threatened knowing this guy owns a gun, whether or not he saw the gun.
At this point I was being a good little juror and there was some doubt in my mind because of this fact so I changed my vote to not guilty. I still think the guy is guilty as sin but that damn doubt!
Hey at least I tried to be a responsible juror, I didn't sit there and tell the judge and lawyers "Yes I'm able to put aside any possible prejudices and render a verdict based on the testimony given today" then 2 hours later say "Well with everything that's happening to black men in the news lately this seems like such a small thing to worry about."
Last edited by Tgo01; 05-13-2015 at 05:51 PM.
11 Angry Men and 1 Quiet Woman
You had better pay your guild dues before you forget. You are 113 months behind.
Exactly! Well more like "4 deluded idiots who obviously had every intention of voting not guilty the moment they sat down, 1 angry and obviously very racist white man, and 1 quiet woman."
But yeah, if it wasn't for the fact that the husband owned a gun I would never have changed my vote, I would have either convinced them all or made it a hung jury. Such a bullshit story to go over to his apartment to "look for his kids" then end up punching the husband a few times then claiming self defense.
Last edited by Tgo01; 05-13-2015 at 05:57 PM.
Bit of an update. My uncle has an aggressive strain of prostate cancer but the good news is they caught it early. He's starting hormone therapy and then radiation asap.