"just doing my civic duty, sir"
I spent the last few weeks serving on a jury in a murder trial at the Regional Justice Center in Kent. I wrote this as things happened, mostly for me (since I wasn't allowed to talk about it with anyone), but here it is if any one cares to read it.
23 September 2010: I got called for jury duty when I was home last Christmas, scheduled to report in February. Seeing as I was in London in February, I had it deferred to September. So I went in yesterday (9/22) for the first. The morning was extremely boring, but I did get over 400 pages read of my book, so it wasn't a total loss. After lunch I was called into a court room for the selection process. As we had been told this was a long case and given the number of potential jurors they called in, I guessed it must be a fairly big case. We walked in and were assigned seats based off our randomly assigned numbers (I was #31). I was seated in the audience section because there were too many of us to fit in the jurors' box. In front of us were two men and a woman at the prosecutor's table (we later found out that one was a detective from the sheriff's office while the other two were lawyers). At the other table was a well-dressed woman and a thin, less formally dressed young man with long hair that was either not very clean or had too much product in it. He looked about my age, perhaps a couple years older. I knew he had to be the defendant.
The judge came in and read the charges: Murder in the first degree, attempted murder and something about a stolen firearm. I think most people in the room were a bit shocked, but I wasn't really. It was somewhat unexpected-- I was expecting a DUI or a minor drugs charge, if I was even put in a pool at all. We went around the room and introduced ourselves, saying our name, where we live, what we do, who we live with and what they do, and what we like to do in our spare time. Then the lawyers took turns yesterday and today (alternating in 20-minute sessions) to ask us general questions related loosely to the case. This included: if we are or are related to or have close friends that are medical, legal or law enforcement professionals; if we knew anyone related to the case (the names of witnesses and experts were read out); if anyone was or had family/friends who had been a victim of a violent crime; and our opinions on guns. Then they asked some more difficult ones: what amendment of the bill of rights do we hold most sacred; if we think police are more reliable on the stand; whether or not it is worse to put an innocent man in prison or let a guilty man go free. We also got some silly ones, like whether or not we watch tv crime shows. I didn't volunteer any answers, which did not go unnoticed. The defense attorney in what would be her last questioning session got up, and looked at me, and said, "Number 31. We haven't heard much from you." Joy. She asked if I were on the panel and my opinion differed from the other 11 jurors, would I still stand up for my position? I said yes, absolutely. I can be pretty stubborn and I have an independent streak; just because I'm quiet doesn't mean I can't be opinionated.
After the defense finished her round of questions, we moved into the selection process. Only 15 people would be selected, and there were I think about 90 of us in the pool. (Originally 110 had been called, but several were excused for hardship before we were taken in to the courtroom, and a couple others were excused for knowing people involved with the case.) Numbers 4-27 were in the juror's box at first. The defense and the prosecution took turns dismissing people from the box, and as people left, the next lowest number was moved into the box. As I was 31, I was quickly moved into the box. They kept dismissing people, and I kept expecting it to be me, since I hadn't said anything and they didn't have a sense of me. But I noticed that the people who had talked the most were dismissed first. I know juror 50 made it to the box, but I don't specifically remember any higher numbers. At this point, the defense attorney stared at us for a long time, looked at her notes, and looked back at us, then said, "The defense accepts the panel." I couldn't believe it. I thought, "I'm still sitting here. This can't be right." Then the prosecutor said, "The prosecution accepts the panel." It all felt very surreal. I tried really hard not to laugh or make any obvious facial expressions of shock/disbelief/amusement at my situation.
I don't know much about my other jurors yet, but I know that will change. I am by far the youngest person (which is probably why they kept me).
27 September 2010, Trial Day 1: Today sucked. The trial is going to be miserable. But at least it didn't feel like it was lasting forever, and I wasn't bored.
I got to the courthouse, and went through security then waited with everyone on the third floor until the bailiff called us up to the fourth floor, where she took us back to the juror's room and finally into the courtroom. There's a lot of waiting around involved in this. I have to remember to grab a new book for tomorrow. I am officially juror number four.
First we heard opening statements, from the prosecution then the defense. There are five counts: Murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, assault in the first degree, possession of a stolen firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm. The defense is not contesting the latter two. That the defendant killed the victim is likewise not in dispute, just whether or not it should be murder 1. And I have to say, at this point (which, yes, is ridiculously early), I'm not really feeling it. I guess I need a better understanding of what "premeditated" means.
The events in question took place almost two years ago, in October 2008. There was a party at a house in Renton, at which a fight broke out. The defendant and his friend (who did not know the other people well) left, then returned with a gun. The victim, whose autopsy revealed a ridiculous level of meth in his bloodstream, fought the defendant for the gun and got killed.
Basically, it's people being in the wrong place at the wrong time, abusing various substances and doing stupid things. Nothing good is going to come of this, there's no greater sense of justice. It's a bunch of kids all around my age being stupid.
The prosecution called two witnesses, both of whom lived at the residence in question. The first (NC) said she had been out for part of the night with a friend (the victim), and found the party underway when she returned. She tried to get people to leave, at which point the fight broke out. She seemed pretty credible. She said she had not been drinking, and seemed to have a fairly good recollection. The defense poked a couple holes in her statement, though, but she generally seemed to be consistent in her story. I was slightly put off by some of her grammar, though. The correct form is "I SAW" NOT "I seen". Just bugged me. The second witness (KB) was not credible at all. She was nervous and fidgety on the stand and I lost count of the number of times she said "I don't remember exactly." She did not come across as all that bright.
I'm not sure what I think about the lawyers. For some reason, I feel a bit put off by the prosecution. I kind of feel like the lead counsel thinks the case is in the bag, and his partner seems not entirely at ease in her role. The defense attorney keeps asking questions that get objected to by the prosecution. I would have thought she'd know not to structure her questions that way. So I'm not convinced that she's a great advocate. But she's (most likely) a public defender, but I guess that's about what you expect.
So we've got some conflicting statements to sort out already. The trial continues tomorrow, and our schedules show it will go through the 21st of next month.
28 September 2010, Trial Day 2: I didn't notice yesterday, but the door to the jury room has a giant chain that goes across it. That makes me very uncomfortable.
We had two more witnesses today, one the assault victim (JM) and the other the girlfriend of the dead man (AD). JM came across as very forthright, but he admitted that he was very drunk and that may have impeded his memory. Some of his statements didn't really match those we heard yesterday. In particular, we heard three different accounts of where AD was supposed to be, so I was glad she was the next witness. She came across the best, I thought. She had shown up later and hadn't had anything to drink, so I feel like her memory of that night might be a bit better. She also had the best grammar of the four.
I think I can speak for most of the jury when I say that the cross examination is the worst part of what we have to sit through. The defense attorney takes forever to ask questions and speaks very slowly, and the prosecution objects to a third of what she says. It's rather frustrating.
I am intrigued by the defense's focus on the interpersonal relationships of those involved. I don't see the relevance, at least not yet.
I am surprised at the number of younger people (both our witnesses and others I see around the courthouse) that show up in ripped jeans and t-shirts, or kind of gangster looking clothes. Don't these people want to make a good impression?
I don't really fit in that well with the other jurors. I am by far the youngest and I can't really contribute much to conversations about retirement, social security, 20- and 30-year class reunions, how young people text too much. Not only am I younger than all of them, I'm younger than most of their children, too.
One of the other jurors (#8) went to Sees candy during the break and brought back chocolate for us. It was very exciting. I think I want to bake something, but that will probably have to be next week as I want to try to replicate the Orangery cake on Friday.
29 September 2010, Trial Day 3: We managed to get through quite a few witnesses today. I was surprised. But then, none of them had a lot to say. Today there were six witnesses, five of whom were law enforcement, all deputies with the King County Sheriff's office. The first was the second to arrive on the scene, but he had spoken with the defendant and his friend earlier in the evening, and knew them from his time working at high schools in the Renton area. The second witness was the first responder. The third witness was the third to arrive. The fourth witness was the home owner where the defendant was found, the step-father of the defendant's friend. Next was the K9 officer who had tracked the suspects to the second home. His testimony was very interesting, about how they train the dogs, and the whole process of using animals for tracking. The final witness was an officer who had assisted in the arrest. None of the information here was really new. I did feel bad for them, as they all are active deputies working graveyard shifts and had to come in during day hours, and many of them probably had to wait around for a long time. I saw the first two witnesses in the hall yesterday, but we didn't have time to get to them.
There was very little cross-examination, so we weren't too bogged down by objections. The defense attorney is very persistent, though; she's going to make everyone say exactly what she wants no matter how many ways she has to phrase her questions.
One of the jurors (13) fell asleep today, for the second time the woman next to her said. We notified the bailiff (although we figure the judge already has noticed). I guess she'll be put as third alternate. I don't know that that has been officially decided yet. I am fairly certain that I'll be put on the deliberations, as I am the only young person. It would actually be disappointing not to be deliberating, after having gone through the whole rest of the process.
30 September 2010, Trial Day 4: No trial today, actually. One of the attorneys got sick, so the proceedings have been postponed. I'm still counting this as a trial day because we had to go in (and we're getting paid for it).
4 October 2010, Trial Day 5: No real trial today either. We did actually get called into the courtroom. They called the day's first witness, and as he entered the room the two security guards got up and started talking together, then one took the judge out of the room and the other excused us back to the jury room. We had no idea what was going on. A half-hour later we were brought back in to the courtroom, and the judge told us that a crank call had been made to the courthouse. At that point it was almost time for the morning break, and he said there were a few "legal issues" to sort out, so we were dismissed until 11. We were still waiting at 11:05, 11:10. Finally the bailiff comes back in and tells us that the legal issues have not yet been resolved, so the judge is letting us go so we're not waiting around all day. Looks like we may not be finished now until Halloween....
5 October 2010, Trial Day 6: Finally a full day. We had three deputies and an associate medical examiner give testimony. I feel really bad for the officers who keep getting called in, because most of them still work graveyard, so they're up all night then have to hang around the courthouse all day. I'm actually confused as to why we're hearing from so many officers. The defendant isn't being tried for resisting arrest, or for use of profanity.
The medical examiner's testimony was actually really interesting. I didn't know anything about how that process works. I wasn't bothered by the somewhat gruesome pictures that accompanied his testimony, either, which I kind of thought I might be. I was amused at how he couldn't be very definite in some of the things he was saying. Of course it makes sense, but it's SO different from what one would see on tv that I thought it was funny.
I am reasonably certain that the woman who sits behind the prosecution every day is the victim's mother. I don't think any of the other observers have been there all the time. Today must have been especially hard for her, to see all those pictures.
It must also be super weird to be the defendant, and hear all these people you don't know talk about you and what you allegedly did and identify you.
Our jury room looks out over the parking areas behind the courthouse. We've noticed a red truck that is never parked well, and it's become a bit of a running joke. #8 brought Sees chocolates for us again, which was very exciting. I haven't decided yet when to bake-- maybe next week. And we did find out that the call yesterday was a bomb threat. I don't know if it was specifically targeted at any particular judge or if it was more general.
6 October 2010, Trial Day 7: A short day today. But a scheduled one, at least. We heard from a witness who had been at the party. Apparently he had been rather reluctant to participate: they issued a warrant for him to appear and threatened to take his kid away. They should have just let him be. His testimony consisted mostly of, "It was two years ago and I was really drunk; I don't remember." We then got partial testimony from a detective. He admitted to misleading the defendant while they were questioning him, saying the other suspect had given a statement. The defendant was also stupid enough not to immediately ask for a lawyer. Seriously, you've been taken to jail and have two detectives tell you they're investigating a homicide, ASK FOR A LAWYER. DO NOT SAY ANYTHING. Also, I believe (but I'm not entirely sure) that the lead detective mentioned by this witness is the one sitting at the prosecution's table.
A day in the life of a juror is not particularly exciting. We are meant to arrive before 8:45. The queue for security can be really long, so I try to be early. Almost everyone sets off the alarms going through the metal detector, so everyone has to be wanded, which is what makes the process take so long. After getting through security, we go up to the third floor. Our courtroom is on the fourth, but they have us meet on the third so we aren't hanging around the witnesses. The bailiff calls us up usually around 8:50 or so, so we go up to the fourth floor and through the courtroom (although sometimes we're taken through the back hallway) into the jury room, which is located across the hall behind the courtroom. The proceedings are supposed to start at 9, but I feel like it's often a bit later than that. We get called in between 9:20 and 9:30. The first couple days the bailiff would give us a call to line up, then she'd come back to get us; but now it's just a call to go in and we sometimes have to scramble a bit to get in the proper order. Everyone (except the judge) stands when we enter, and they stand when we leave too. We listen to testimony until about 10:30, when we take a morning recess, then we're brought back until lunch, then we have an afternoon recess around 2:30. For the recesses we just get sent back into the jury room. It's kind of small for 15 people, but it has bathrooms and a kitchenette. On one wall there's a white board and bulletin board that has take-away menus for many local restaurants, which is a bit ominous, really. I guess they really don't let us out at all for deliberations. There's a big table at a diagonal in the middle of the room, but it only has room for 12, so the other three have chairs against the wall. I feel sometimes like we're excluding them a bit, especially since we all sit in the same chairs every time. I sit between 13 and 11; across from me is 1. We aren't supposed to discuss the case, so sometimes (especially the first couple days) it can be a bit awkward, since the only thing we all have in common is the case. But we're getting to know each other, and I think it's a pretty good group. There isn't anyone I dislike, at any rate.
7 October 2010, Trial Day 8: We finished the detective's testimony this morning. For the self-proclaimed "good cop" I felt like he came out looking kind of bad. He's got a scared 20-year-old who's been drinking, has been up all night and with a head injury and they're trying to convince him to talk. It made me uncomfortable. BUT I can't believe the defendant kept talking! He said he knew he ought to stay silent, but he didn't. Ugh. The defendant has been very calm so far in the proceedings, but the detective's testimony made him visibly upset: He put his head in his hands at one point, and he was muttering to himself, seemingly going over what HE remembered of the events.
We also heard from an EMT who had examined the defendant at the precinct and a couple deputies. I'm going to have to take in colored pencils so I can draw a map of who was where when. I think we've heard from 9 or 10 of them, and all their stories run together after awhile. Which may be good; at least they're consistent?
12 October 2010, Trial Day 9: I think all of us were at least a little glad to be back after a long weekend. As one juror said, it's like reading a novel: you want to know what's going to happen next. Which means we'll be gutted if they settle or call a mistrial.
We lost juror 13 today. She fell asleep during the morning's testimony-- not just dozed off, but she was completely out. Another juror said later that 13 had told her she'd recently been put on medication, so that could have been affecting her. Regardless, sleeping through testimony really isn't acceptable, and she was asked to leave at the lunch break.
The testimony today wasn't very interesting. We heard from another detective, and I thought he seemed better than last week's detective. But there was a LOT of evidence to be unwrapped and documented, and that is a painfully boring process.
There was some stuff in his testimony that really didn't align with other things we'd heard. I can't figure out why the prosecution is trying to impeach their own witnesses, or why they brought them in if their statements were problematic. The strangest bit to me was that we had heard from the gun owner that there may have been one slug with the shotgun when it was stolen, but we've been presented with evidence that there were two slugs fired. Where did the other one come from?
The other witness was a doctor who treated the surviving victim. He's a professor at UW med school, so I wondered if my cousin or my friend, both of whom are students there, have ever met him. He seemed pretty nice and helpfully dumbed down the medical terms for us. I'm not sure why, but the pictures of this victim made me more uncomfortable than the autopsy pictures. Probably a good thing I'm not in medical school.
13 October 2010, Trial Day 10: Today was another short day, owning to scheduling difficulties. But it was nice not to have to get up and down to the courthouse early.
The defense called her first witness (despite the fact that the prosecution is not yet done-- more scheduling problems). It was the Medical Examiner we had already heard from and he did not look thrilled to be back. I suppose I wouldn't be happy to have someone questioning my work that I've devoted 15-20 years to, either. But that's how this process works, and he probably ought to know that.
Then we returned to the prosecution. First up was a DNA analyst, and then a fingerprint specialist. Neither of them had much useful evidence, but it was still interesting to hear about their work.
Our great tragedy was that the badly-parked red truck was not present today, nor yesterday's incarnation of a badly parked white SUV.
14 October 2010, Trial Day 11: Today was a long day and not super interesting. We heard from the firearms expert, which I've been waiting for for a long time. The defense council really went after her in cross, and not entirely without reason, but I felt like the defense was really reaching on this point and ultimately not worth following through about. The defense is trying to use a "self defense" strategy, but it's hard to call self defense when the victim was about 9 feet away from the shooter, at least in my opinion. So the defense council has been trying to cast doubt on the 9-foot distance that both the firearms person and the medical examiner have stated. The evidence really seems to support that, though. It definitely doesn't seem to have been a contact shot.
Our second witness was another defense witness (again out of order owing to scheduling issues), who does toxicology. There wasn't a lot for her to say. Everyone had already testified that they were drinking, and beer bottles were recovered in evidence. I was a bit surprised (and so was the prosecution) that the defense council jumped straight to "what was the blood alcohol content?" without any foundational questions about how the samples are obtained and tested. She did back track to them, but it was still slightly amusing.
18 October 2010, Trial Day 12: The prosecution has finally rested its case! Too bad we were originally told we'd be done by now... oh well. I'm not at all surprised we've gone over, and this is only a minor inconvenience to my life--it's not like I'm the defendant. Today marks two years since the start of the events in question.
We started with the lead detective on the case, the one who has been sitting by the prosecution for the whole trial. This made me rather uncomfortable: How can he testify when he's heard everything all the other witnesses have said? There was really nothing new here, which is probably why this witness didn't take as much time as apparently people thought it would. I really expected the cross examination to take longer. Pretty much everything covered here had already been covered by the other detective (from days 7-8), and I wasn't any more impressed by this than I had been by the earlier testimony. I did notice that the defendant was again agitated during this testimony as he had been during the earlier one. It seems to me that he disputes the assertion that the detectives made no promises or threats when they took a statement from him.
I had expected this detective to be the final witness for the prosecution, but I was still surprised when the lead prosecutor stood up and said, "The state rests." I have to say, I am not entirely convinced. I mean, there's no dispute that the defendant DID kill the defendant, but the charge of murder 1 is really about intention, as I understand it (with the "premeditated" bit-- I really need a good legal definition of this). I honestly don't think he showed up with the intention to kill any one. Yeah, it was stupid to turn up with a gun, but he's not (technically) on trial for stupidity.
19 October 2010, Trial Day 13: Today was another short day. Dad thinks I should be irritated by the apparent inability of the court to schedule things appropriately but I don't mind, especially since we're having really good weather right now. We went through four witnesses: a deputy, a detective, and two people who had been recalled from the first two days. There was nothing new at all. It did seem like the defense council was going for a mistrial, though, and I was a bit alarmed. We're on week four; I'm now invested in this and want to see it through to the end. The two witnesses she brought back she asked if they had talked to anyone about their testimony, and in particular she had brought in copies of facebook pages (let this be a lesson: anything you post on facebook can and will be used by lawyers) (also a side note: I think the lawyers rather enjoy reading transcripts out loud, because then they get to swear in front of the judge).
I am confused by the statements of one of the witnesses, whom I identified above as JM. He gave a statement while in the hospital immediately after the incident, but he doesn't remember this statement at all. A few months later he gave another statement to a detective, but this statement doesn't remotely align with the first AND doesn't seem to match the ballistics. So I don't know where this version came from, if he invented it to cover what he didn't remember?
I continue not to be impressed by the defense council, but I am not convinced by the prosecution. I think actually reading some of the documents in evidence will help.
The red truck was again badly parked.
20 October 2010, Trial Day 14: The defense rests. Today was a long and exhausting day.
There were a lot of people watching today, sitting behind the defendant. There are always a few people on each side, but I'd never seen this many people except for one day when what looked like a high school civics class came to observe for a bit. The first witness was another toxicologist, who testified about the meth levels in the victim, which was found to be .91. His testimony wasn't particularly interesting, because a blood sample doesn't really say anything about behavior, only how a person might be acting, nor does it indicate how much was taken or in what phase the person was. And as the victim had a several-year history of meth use, he had certainly acquired a tolerance and this (while very high) level may have been standard for him.
So at the morning break I was expecting to settle in for another boring day. Then the defense called the defendant as the next witness. I was REALLY surprised; I didn't think they'd have him speak, because he would then have to face cross examination. This explained why so many people were present: One whom I've seen before is probably the defendant's father; another was clearly his older brother-- the family resemblance was remarkable. The defendant was clearly nervous, but he spoke calmly and quietly and wasn't overly agitated. He didn't look at us at all. (On a side note, I do find it really interesting how different witnesses have acted with respect to the jury. Some directed all their answers towards us while some don't even acknowledge us.) I thought he presented fairly well under direct, although not so under cross, but he did remain polite and relatively calm. His testimony was that he did fire the shots, but that he didn't take aim and didn't intend to hurt or kill anyone. His description of events and position of himself and the victim did match what JM had said, but again, this doesn't quite coincide with the ballistics. I think I can see a way in which it could work out, but it doesn't align clearly.
The cross examination was really difficult for me to sit through. Of course the prosecution was harsh, but it kind of felt like the lawyer was a bully going after a scared little kid. Counsel also didn't get much out of him that we hadn't heard, and just seemed to be trying to make him look stupid. Which I don't think he'd really dispute.
I was surprised that we did not hear from the defendant's friend who was present for these events and also seemed to be the instigator for a lot of what went wrong that night.
Closing arguments are tomorrow, then we'll be given the case. If I'm an alternate I won't care at all, because I'm not sure there is a right or even a good answer in this case.
The courtroom next to us ended in a hung jury today, after deliberating for over a week on another murder case. I hope that isn't us.
21 October 2010, Trial Day 15: Today was a complete waste of time. We were supposed to get closing arguments, but at 10:45am, they said that "there wasn't time." But they still made us hang around until after lunch, when we were read our instructions. I think there were 48 separate things? So closing arguments are now set for Monday, and deliberations will follow. We did get detailed descriptions of each crime, and the specific elements that must be met. Also, in the event that we don't find for the stated charges, we are also to consider lesser charges-- for example, for charge one we will look at first degree murder, then second degree murder, then manslaughter one and manslaughter two. We did get a definition of "premeditated" that I don't think I like. It seemed very vague.
2 was excused today because she is meant to go on vacation next week. She had stated this at the beginning, but since the trial was supposed to be over by now they still put her on. But she was excused for her vacation.
25 October 2010, Trial Day 16: Today was closing arguments. The prosecution went first, and the lawyer focused a lot on the instructions that were given to us, and went back and summarized the case to show how they had met every point. It actually made me a little uncomfortable, because he was speaking directly to us whereas everything until now has been directed towards witnesses or the judge. The defense counsel went next. She took FOREVER, going through most of the witnesses and stating whether or not they were unbiased (which the prosecution strongly objected to). It kind of felt like she was just throwing everything imaginable out to us with the hope that something might stick. The thing that made me the most uncomfortable was when the defense attorney called me out with what I had said in voir dire. She had asked me if I would stick to my beliefs and not acquiesce to the rest of the jury, and I had said yes, that if it was something I strongly believed in I would certainly stand up for my position. So she brought that up in what felt like a last-ditch attempt to get even ONE person to believe in the defense's version of events. That she specifically called me out made me very upset, though. Then the prosecution got a rebuttal statement. Ultimately, it's not like the closing arguments are really going to change anyone's opinion.
I did love the assumption that we're all reasonable people. How do they really know?
10 was selected as the alternate. The rest of us will deliberate tomorrow.
26 October 2010, Deliberations and Verdict: Well, that went much faster than I had anticipated and I'm still kind of shocked it's over. We found the defendant guilty on all five charges in three hours.
We went in about 9am, and we elected 15 as our foreman. I thought he did a very good job of guiding the conversation and listening to everyone. We passed around a can from the kitchenette as a talking stick. We first addressed the two charges related to the gun (illegal possession and possession of a stolen firearm) since the defense had already conceded to them. Then we turned to the first charge of murder in the first degree. Everyone was in agreement that it was a murder, rather than the lesser charge of manslaughter. In the state of Washington, there are two ways to fulfill requirements for murder 2: First is intentional murder, where the murder is committed with intent; and second is felony murder, where (while the crime of second degree assault is in commission--which includes threatening someone with a deadly weapon) a person is killed. Clearly the defendant had a weapon which was being used to intimidate a group of people and a person was killed, so at the very least we were going to find for that. There is an exception for justifiable homicide, ie, self defense, but that cannot apply where the person is the first aggressor. The question came down to premeditation, which is the only thing that differentiates murder one from intentional murder two. We all agreed that Washington has a rubbish definition of premeditation. I had always thought that it involved some advance planning, but according to the state it just has to involve some deliberation that lasts longer than a "moment in time"-- but could be any length and could occur immediately before the commission of the crime. I do not understand how this differs from intent, or at least how one could avoid premeditation and still get caught on intent. We debated this for a long time, most of the time we spent in the room. I really had a difficult time with this question, as did 11, 8 and 14, and to a slightly lesser extent 5 and 15.
Again, I really don't think he brought the gun with the intention to kill anyone, although as 12 pointed out, you don't grab a gun unless you mean to use it. I do think it was intended as a threat, but I am not convinced he meant to shot it at anyone. But when he got attacked, I do think he was afraid for his life, and there is little doubt in my mind that had the victim managed to get the gun fully away from the defendant, the defendant would not be standing here today. However, based on: 1) the defendant's original statement to the police that he was standing when he fired the gun; 2) the ballistic and forensic evidence that showed the defendant and the victim were about 9 feet apart when the victim was shot; 3) the location of the entry wound and track through the victim's body it seems that the victim was in retreat and that the imminent danger had passed.
The question of premeditation ultimately came down to the type of weapon, which was a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, meaning that the shooter must empty the spent shell and load a new one into the chamber with a deliberate motion. Four shell casings were found, one a little ways into the yard and the other three right next to each other in a neat line. We can definitively account for three of the rounds: one--a slug--hit the victim in the side (which traveled through both lungs and severed his aorta before coming to rest in his shoulder); and the other two (double-ought buckshot) hit the other victim, once in the wrist and the other in the back of the shoulder. There was debate (both in testimony and in the jury room) about whether or not a warning shot was fired, which would account for the first shell (a missing slug). But even if he didn't fire a shot (or if it had accidentally gone off in the struggle over the gun), there was still an empty shell that had to be ejected. We decided that the thought to fire the gun at somebody followed by the action to reload the gun was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of premeditation.
Given that the first shooting was premeditated, it would be difficult to argue that the following shots were not premeditated. I had a minor reservation in that we had extremely conflicting stories about where the next victim was positioned. If we followed his first statement, that he opened the door and got shot, then it could be possible that the defendant saw the door open and fired at it without seeing any one there. The fact that this victim was also shot in the back of his shoulder made this shooting seem much more intentional, especially with the necessary action of reloading the gun. Further, the fact that this last shell casing was ejected could indicated that the defendant tried to fire again but was out of ammunition, at which point he ran away.
Finally, we had no argument about the third count of assault. I thought it was weird that the same event warranted two counts (assault and attempted murder), but the assault charge was never in question for me.
The bailiff came to let us out for lunch at noon, but we'd pretty much decided at that point. She looked quite surprised that we'd already reached a verdict. I'd read before that if a jury is quick to reach a verdict, it is usually is indicative of a conviction. We stayed in the jury room for the lunch break to take a final vote and fill out the forms. The courtroom was filled when we entered after lunch. I didn't look at the defendant at all, just at the judge. We handed over the verdict forms and the judge read them out loud. He then asked each one of us if this was our individual opinion and the opinion of the jury as a whole. We were then excused back to the jury room. Most of us were pretty shaken up-- 14 was crying, 1 was tearing up. I kind of felt like I was in shock. The judge came back and spoke with us, and we were given certificates of participation. He said he figured it would be murder one or two and that he thought we made a good decision. We were given the opportunity to speak with the lawyers. Most people just wanted to get out, so they left, but I returned to the courtroom with 1, 8, 14 and 15. Only the prosecutors were there. They seemed much nicer and more human when they were interacting with us then as opposed to when putting on the trial. They told us that the defendant's friend--the one we were surprised not to have heard from--had plead out to murder two and sentenced to 11 years. They said they'd offered the same plea to the defendant, but he elected not to take it; and they said they were surprised this case had gone to trial. And it's true, there wasn't much of a defense available; he should have taken the plea. The prosecutors also filled us in on some of his priors-- car theft and something else, but nothing violent. There was, however, an incident that he had filmed on his cell phone camera in which his friend held up a skateboarder at gun point. No charges were brought in this case because the friend has an identical twin and it was not possible to determine which one actually committed the crime. At any rate, it seems like these two were on a path of poor life decisions that was going to end badly at some point. The prosecutors also told us that the defendant is looking at 55-60 years in sentencing, which will most likely be the rest of his life. It kind of made me sick-- I mean, what kind of life is that? I guess I want to think that he's still young, he could turn his life around, but he doesn't have that opportunity. But it's not like our prisons are good for rehabilitation anyway. And it's not like the guy he killed was an upstanding member of the community-- he was a serious meth addict with swastikas tattooed on him (the judge told us he had disallowed photographs showing these tattoos).
I am very unhappy with our decision for first degree murder. It makes sense and I don't regret it, but I am uncomfortable with it. As 8 said when I talked with him, if there was any way around it we would have gone for it, but given the definitions in the law this seems like the most logical outcome. I accept it, but I don't have to like it.
The Seattle Times has a brief bit about the case, which is here if anyone cares to see it. The details are not exact (especially the bit about the second victim getting hit by stay gunfire, since we found the defendant guilty of attempted murder on that), but we still made the news.
EDIT: Sentencing occurred 17 Dec. The defendant received 50 years.
23 September 2010: I got called for jury duty when I was home last Christmas, scheduled to report in February. Seeing as I was in London in February, I had it deferred to September. So I went in yesterday (9/22) for the first. The morning was extremely boring, but I did get over 400 pages read of my book, so it wasn't a total loss. After lunch I was called into a court room for the selection process. As we had been told this was a long case and given the number of potential jurors they called in, I guessed it must be a fairly big case. We walked in and were assigned seats based off our randomly assigned numbers (I was #31). I was seated in the audience section because there were too many of us to fit in the jurors' box. In front of us were two men and a woman at the prosecutor's table (we later found out that one was a detective from the sheriff's office while the other two were lawyers). At the other table was a well-dressed woman and a thin, less formally dressed young man with long hair that was either not very clean or had too much product in it. He looked about my age, perhaps a couple years older. I knew he had to be the defendant.
The judge came in and read the charges: Murder in the first degree, attempted murder and something about a stolen firearm. I think most people in the room were a bit shocked, but I wasn't really. It was somewhat unexpected-- I was expecting a DUI or a minor drugs charge, if I was even put in a pool at all. We went around the room and introduced ourselves, saying our name, where we live, what we do, who we live with and what they do, and what we like to do in our spare time. Then the lawyers took turns yesterday and today (alternating in 20-minute sessions) to ask us general questions related loosely to the case. This included: if we are or are related to or have close friends that are medical, legal or law enforcement professionals; if we knew anyone related to the case (the names of witnesses and experts were read out); if anyone was or had family/friends who had been a victim of a violent crime; and our opinions on guns. Then they asked some more difficult ones: what amendment of the bill of rights do we hold most sacred; if we think police are more reliable on the stand; whether or not it is worse to put an innocent man in prison or let a guilty man go free. We also got some silly ones, like whether or not we watch tv crime shows. I didn't volunteer any answers, which did not go unnoticed. The defense attorney in what would be her last questioning session got up, and looked at me, and said, "Number 31. We haven't heard much from you." Joy. She asked if I were on the panel and my opinion differed from the other 11 jurors, would I still stand up for my position? I said yes, absolutely. I can be pretty stubborn and I have an independent streak; just because I'm quiet doesn't mean I can't be opinionated.
After the defense finished her round of questions, we moved into the selection process. Only 15 people would be selected, and there were I think about 90 of us in the pool. (Originally 110 had been called, but several were excused for hardship before we were taken in to the courtroom, and a couple others were excused for knowing people involved with the case.) Numbers 4-27 were in the juror's box at first. The defense and the prosecution took turns dismissing people from the box, and as people left, the next lowest number was moved into the box. As I was 31, I was quickly moved into the box. They kept dismissing people, and I kept expecting it to be me, since I hadn't said anything and they didn't have a sense of me. But I noticed that the people who had talked the most were dismissed first. I know juror 50 made it to the box, but I don't specifically remember any higher numbers. At this point, the defense attorney stared at us for a long time, looked at her notes, and looked back at us, then said, "The defense accepts the panel." I couldn't believe it. I thought, "I'm still sitting here. This can't be right." Then the prosecutor said, "The prosecution accepts the panel." It all felt very surreal. I tried really hard not to laugh or make any obvious facial expressions of shock/disbelief/amusement at my situation.
I don't know much about my other jurors yet, but I know that will change. I am by far the youngest person (which is probably why they kept me).
27 September 2010, Trial Day 1: Today sucked. The trial is going to be miserable. But at least it didn't feel like it was lasting forever, and I wasn't bored.
I got to the courthouse, and went through security then waited with everyone on the third floor until the bailiff called us up to the fourth floor, where she took us back to the juror's room and finally into the courtroom. There's a lot of waiting around involved in this. I have to remember to grab a new book for tomorrow. I am officially juror number four.
First we heard opening statements, from the prosecution then the defense. There are five counts: Murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, assault in the first degree, possession of a stolen firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm. The defense is not contesting the latter two. That the defendant killed the victim is likewise not in dispute, just whether or not it should be murder 1. And I have to say, at this point (which, yes, is ridiculously early), I'm not really feeling it. I guess I need a better understanding of what "premeditated" means.
The events in question took place almost two years ago, in October 2008. There was a party at a house in Renton, at which a fight broke out. The defendant and his friend (who did not know the other people well) left, then returned with a gun. The victim, whose autopsy revealed a ridiculous level of meth in his bloodstream, fought the defendant for the gun and got killed.
Basically, it's people being in the wrong place at the wrong time, abusing various substances and doing stupid things. Nothing good is going to come of this, there's no greater sense of justice. It's a bunch of kids all around my age being stupid.
The prosecution called two witnesses, both of whom lived at the residence in question. The first (NC) said she had been out for part of the night with a friend (the victim), and found the party underway when she returned. She tried to get people to leave, at which point the fight broke out. She seemed pretty credible. She said she had not been drinking, and seemed to have a fairly good recollection. The defense poked a couple holes in her statement, though, but she generally seemed to be consistent in her story. I was slightly put off by some of her grammar, though. The correct form is "I SAW" NOT "I seen". Just bugged me. The second witness (KB) was not credible at all. She was nervous and fidgety on the stand and I lost count of the number of times she said "I don't remember exactly." She did not come across as all that bright.
I'm not sure what I think about the lawyers. For some reason, I feel a bit put off by the prosecution. I kind of feel like the lead counsel thinks the case is in the bag, and his partner seems not entirely at ease in her role. The defense attorney keeps asking questions that get objected to by the prosecution. I would have thought she'd know not to structure her questions that way. So I'm not convinced that she's a great advocate. But she's (most likely) a public defender, but I guess that's about what you expect.
So we've got some conflicting statements to sort out already. The trial continues tomorrow, and our schedules show it will go through the 21st of next month.
28 September 2010, Trial Day 2: I didn't notice yesterday, but the door to the jury room has a giant chain that goes across it. That makes me very uncomfortable.
We had two more witnesses today, one the assault victim (JM) and the other the girlfriend of the dead man (AD). JM came across as very forthright, but he admitted that he was very drunk and that may have impeded his memory. Some of his statements didn't really match those we heard yesterday. In particular, we heard three different accounts of where AD was supposed to be, so I was glad she was the next witness. She came across the best, I thought. She had shown up later and hadn't had anything to drink, so I feel like her memory of that night might be a bit better. She also had the best grammar of the four.
I think I can speak for most of the jury when I say that the cross examination is the worst part of what we have to sit through. The defense attorney takes forever to ask questions and speaks very slowly, and the prosecution objects to a third of what she says. It's rather frustrating.
I am intrigued by the defense's focus on the interpersonal relationships of those involved. I don't see the relevance, at least not yet.
I am surprised at the number of younger people (both our witnesses and others I see around the courthouse) that show up in ripped jeans and t-shirts, or kind of gangster looking clothes. Don't these people want to make a good impression?
I don't really fit in that well with the other jurors. I am by far the youngest and I can't really contribute much to conversations about retirement, social security, 20- and 30-year class reunions, how young people text too much. Not only am I younger than all of them, I'm younger than most of their children, too.
One of the other jurors (#8) went to Sees candy during the break and brought back chocolate for us. It was very exciting. I think I want to bake something, but that will probably have to be next week as I want to try to replicate the Orangery cake on Friday.
29 September 2010, Trial Day 3: We managed to get through quite a few witnesses today. I was surprised. But then, none of them had a lot to say. Today there were six witnesses, five of whom were law enforcement, all deputies with the King County Sheriff's office. The first was the second to arrive on the scene, but he had spoken with the defendant and his friend earlier in the evening, and knew them from his time working at high schools in the Renton area. The second witness was the first responder. The third witness was the third to arrive. The fourth witness was the home owner where the defendant was found, the step-father of the defendant's friend. Next was the K9 officer who had tracked the suspects to the second home. His testimony was very interesting, about how they train the dogs, and the whole process of using animals for tracking. The final witness was an officer who had assisted in the arrest. None of the information here was really new. I did feel bad for them, as they all are active deputies working graveyard shifts and had to come in during day hours, and many of them probably had to wait around for a long time. I saw the first two witnesses in the hall yesterday, but we didn't have time to get to them.
There was very little cross-examination, so we weren't too bogged down by objections. The defense attorney is very persistent, though; she's going to make everyone say exactly what she wants no matter how many ways she has to phrase her questions.
One of the jurors (13) fell asleep today, for the second time the woman next to her said. We notified the bailiff (although we figure the judge already has noticed). I guess she'll be put as third alternate. I don't know that that has been officially decided yet. I am fairly certain that I'll be put on the deliberations, as I am the only young person. It would actually be disappointing not to be deliberating, after having gone through the whole rest of the process.
30 September 2010, Trial Day 4: No trial today, actually. One of the attorneys got sick, so the proceedings have been postponed. I'm still counting this as a trial day because we had to go in (and we're getting paid for it).
4 October 2010, Trial Day 5: No real trial today either. We did actually get called into the courtroom. They called the day's first witness, and as he entered the room the two security guards got up and started talking together, then one took the judge out of the room and the other excused us back to the jury room. We had no idea what was going on. A half-hour later we were brought back in to the courtroom, and the judge told us that a crank call had been made to the courthouse. At that point it was almost time for the morning break, and he said there were a few "legal issues" to sort out, so we were dismissed until 11. We were still waiting at 11:05, 11:10. Finally the bailiff comes back in and tells us that the legal issues have not yet been resolved, so the judge is letting us go so we're not waiting around all day. Looks like we may not be finished now until Halloween....
5 October 2010, Trial Day 6: Finally a full day. We had three deputies and an associate medical examiner give testimony. I feel really bad for the officers who keep getting called in, because most of them still work graveyard, so they're up all night then have to hang around the courthouse all day. I'm actually confused as to why we're hearing from so many officers. The defendant isn't being tried for resisting arrest, or for use of profanity.
The medical examiner's testimony was actually really interesting. I didn't know anything about how that process works. I wasn't bothered by the somewhat gruesome pictures that accompanied his testimony, either, which I kind of thought I might be. I was amused at how he couldn't be very definite in some of the things he was saying. Of course it makes sense, but it's SO different from what one would see on tv that I thought it was funny.
I am reasonably certain that the woman who sits behind the prosecution every day is the victim's mother. I don't think any of the other observers have been there all the time. Today must have been especially hard for her, to see all those pictures.
It must also be super weird to be the defendant, and hear all these people you don't know talk about you and what you allegedly did and identify you.
Our jury room looks out over the parking areas behind the courthouse. We've noticed a red truck that is never parked well, and it's become a bit of a running joke. #8 brought Sees chocolates for us again, which was very exciting. I haven't decided yet when to bake-- maybe next week. And we did find out that the call yesterday was a bomb threat. I don't know if it was specifically targeted at any particular judge or if it was more general.
6 October 2010, Trial Day 7: A short day today. But a scheduled one, at least. We heard from a witness who had been at the party. Apparently he had been rather reluctant to participate: they issued a warrant for him to appear and threatened to take his kid away. They should have just let him be. His testimony consisted mostly of, "It was two years ago and I was really drunk; I don't remember." We then got partial testimony from a detective. He admitted to misleading the defendant while they were questioning him, saying the other suspect had given a statement. The defendant was also stupid enough not to immediately ask for a lawyer. Seriously, you've been taken to jail and have two detectives tell you they're investigating a homicide, ASK FOR A LAWYER. DO NOT SAY ANYTHING. Also, I believe (but I'm not entirely sure) that the lead detective mentioned by this witness is the one sitting at the prosecution's table.
A day in the life of a juror is not particularly exciting. We are meant to arrive before 8:45. The queue for security can be really long, so I try to be early. Almost everyone sets off the alarms going through the metal detector, so everyone has to be wanded, which is what makes the process take so long. After getting through security, we go up to the third floor. Our courtroom is on the fourth, but they have us meet on the third so we aren't hanging around the witnesses. The bailiff calls us up usually around 8:50 or so, so we go up to the fourth floor and through the courtroom (although sometimes we're taken through the back hallway) into the jury room, which is located across the hall behind the courtroom. The proceedings are supposed to start at 9, but I feel like it's often a bit later than that. We get called in between 9:20 and 9:30. The first couple days the bailiff would give us a call to line up, then she'd come back to get us; but now it's just a call to go in and we sometimes have to scramble a bit to get in the proper order. Everyone (except the judge) stands when we enter, and they stand when we leave too. We listen to testimony until about 10:30, when we take a morning recess, then we're brought back until lunch, then we have an afternoon recess around 2:30. For the recesses we just get sent back into the jury room. It's kind of small for 15 people, but it has bathrooms and a kitchenette. On one wall there's a white board and bulletin board that has take-away menus for many local restaurants, which is a bit ominous, really. I guess they really don't let us out at all for deliberations. There's a big table at a diagonal in the middle of the room, but it only has room for 12, so the other three have chairs against the wall. I feel sometimes like we're excluding them a bit, especially since we all sit in the same chairs every time. I sit between 13 and 11; across from me is 1. We aren't supposed to discuss the case, so sometimes (especially the first couple days) it can be a bit awkward, since the only thing we all have in common is the case. But we're getting to know each other, and I think it's a pretty good group. There isn't anyone I dislike, at any rate.
7 October 2010, Trial Day 8: We finished the detective's testimony this morning. For the self-proclaimed "good cop" I felt like he came out looking kind of bad. He's got a scared 20-year-old who's been drinking, has been up all night and with a head injury and they're trying to convince him to talk. It made me uncomfortable. BUT I can't believe the defendant kept talking! He said he knew he ought to stay silent, but he didn't. Ugh. The defendant has been very calm so far in the proceedings, but the detective's testimony made him visibly upset: He put his head in his hands at one point, and he was muttering to himself, seemingly going over what HE remembered of the events.
We also heard from an EMT who had examined the defendant at the precinct and a couple deputies. I'm going to have to take in colored pencils so I can draw a map of who was where when. I think we've heard from 9 or 10 of them, and all their stories run together after awhile. Which may be good; at least they're consistent?
12 October 2010, Trial Day 9: I think all of us were at least a little glad to be back after a long weekend. As one juror said, it's like reading a novel: you want to know what's going to happen next. Which means we'll be gutted if they settle or call a mistrial.
We lost juror 13 today. She fell asleep during the morning's testimony-- not just dozed off, but she was completely out. Another juror said later that 13 had told her she'd recently been put on medication, so that could have been affecting her. Regardless, sleeping through testimony really isn't acceptable, and she was asked to leave at the lunch break.
The testimony today wasn't very interesting. We heard from another detective, and I thought he seemed better than last week's detective. But there was a LOT of evidence to be unwrapped and documented, and that is a painfully boring process.
There was some stuff in his testimony that really didn't align with other things we'd heard. I can't figure out why the prosecution is trying to impeach their own witnesses, or why they brought them in if their statements were problematic. The strangest bit to me was that we had heard from the gun owner that there may have been one slug with the shotgun when it was stolen, but we've been presented with evidence that there were two slugs fired. Where did the other one come from?
The other witness was a doctor who treated the surviving victim. He's a professor at UW med school, so I wondered if my cousin or my friend, both of whom are students there, have ever met him. He seemed pretty nice and helpfully dumbed down the medical terms for us. I'm not sure why, but the pictures of this victim made me more uncomfortable than the autopsy pictures. Probably a good thing I'm not in medical school.
13 October 2010, Trial Day 10: Today was another short day, owning to scheduling difficulties. But it was nice not to have to get up and down to the courthouse early.
The defense called her first witness (despite the fact that the prosecution is not yet done-- more scheduling problems). It was the Medical Examiner we had already heard from and he did not look thrilled to be back. I suppose I wouldn't be happy to have someone questioning my work that I've devoted 15-20 years to, either. But that's how this process works, and he probably ought to know that.
Then we returned to the prosecution. First up was a DNA analyst, and then a fingerprint specialist. Neither of them had much useful evidence, but it was still interesting to hear about their work.
Our great tragedy was that the badly-parked red truck was not present today, nor yesterday's incarnation of a badly parked white SUV.
14 October 2010, Trial Day 11: Today was a long day and not super interesting. We heard from the firearms expert, which I've been waiting for for a long time. The defense council really went after her in cross, and not entirely without reason, but I felt like the defense was really reaching on this point and ultimately not worth following through about. The defense is trying to use a "self defense" strategy, but it's hard to call self defense when the victim was about 9 feet away from the shooter, at least in my opinion. So the defense council has been trying to cast doubt on the 9-foot distance that both the firearms person and the medical examiner have stated. The evidence really seems to support that, though. It definitely doesn't seem to have been a contact shot.
Our second witness was another defense witness (again out of order owing to scheduling issues), who does toxicology. There wasn't a lot for her to say. Everyone had already testified that they were drinking, and beer bottles were recovered in evidence. I was a bit surprised (and so was the prosecution) that the defense council jumped straight to "what was the blood alcohol content?" without any foundational questions about how the samples are obtained and tested. She did back track to them, but it was still slightly amusing.
18 October 2010, Trial Day 12: The prosecution has finally rested its case! Too bad we were originally told we'd be done by now... oh well. I'm not at all surprised we've gone over, and this is only a minor inconvenience to my life--it's not like I'm the defendant. Today marks two years since the start of the events in question.
We started with the lead detective on the case, the one who has been sitting by the prosecution for the whole trial. This made me rather uncomfortable: How can he testify when he's heard everything all the other witnesses have said? There was really nothing new here, which is probably why this witness didn't take as much time as apparently people thought it would. I really expected the cross examination to take longer. Pretty much everything covered here had already been covered by the other detective (from days 7-8), and I wasn't any more impressed by this than I had been by the earlier testimony. I did notice that the defendant was again agitated during this testimony as he had been during the earlier one. It seems to me that he disputes the assertion that the detectives made no promises or threats when they took a statement from him.
I had expected this detective to be the final witness for the prosecution, but I was still surprised when the lead prosecutor stood up and said, "The state rests." I have to say, I am not entirely convinced. I mean, there's no dispute that the defendant DID kill the defendant, but the charge of murder 1 is really about intention, as I understand it (with the "premeditated" bit-- I really need a good legal definition of this). I honestly don't think he showed up with the intention to kill any one. Yeah, it was stupid to turn up with a gun, but he's not (technically) on trial for stupidity.
19 October 2010, Trial Day 13: Today was another short day. Dad thinks I should be irritated by the apparent inability of the court to schedule things appropriately but I don't mind, especially since we're having really good weather right now. We went through four witnesses: a deputy, a detective, and two people who had been recalled from the first two days. There was nothing new at all. It did seem like the defense council was going for a mistrial, though, and I was a bit alarmed. We're on week four; I'm now invested in this and want to see it through to the end. The two witnesses she brought back she asked if they had talked to anyone about their testimony, and in particular she had brought in copies of facebook pages (let this be a lesson: anything you post on facebook can and will be used by lawyers) (also a side note: I think the lawyers rather enjoy reading transcripts out loud, because then they get to swear in front of the judge).
I am confused by the statements of one of the witnesses, whom I identified above as JM. He gave a statement while in the hospital immediately after the incident, but he doesn't remember this statement at all. A few months later he gave another statement to a detective, but this statement doesn't remotely align with the first AND doesn't seem to match the ballistics. So I don't know where this version came from, if he invented it to cover what he didn't remember?
I continue not to be impressed by the defense council, but I am not convinced by the prosecution. I think actually reading some of the documents in evidence will help.
The red truck was again badly parked.
20 October 2010, Trial Day 14: The defense rests. Today was a long and exhausting day.
There were a lot of people watching today, sitting behind the defendant. There are always a few people on each side, but I'd never seen this many people except for one day when what looked like a high school civics class came to observe for a bit. The first witness was another toxicologist, who testified about the meth levels in the victim, which was found to be .91. His testimony wasn't particularly interesting, because a blood sample doesn't really say anything about behavior, only how a person might be acting, nor does it indicate how much was taken or in what phase the person was. And as the victim had a several-year history of meth use, he had certainly acquired a tolerance and this (while very high) level may have been standard for him.
So at the morning break I was expecting to settle in for another boring day. Then the defense called the defendant as the next witness. I was REALLY surprised; I didn't think they'd have him speak, because he would then have to face cross examination. This explained why so many people were present: One whom I've seen before is probably the defendant's father; another was clearly his older brother-- the family resemblance was remarkable. The defendant was clearly nervous, but he spoke calmly and quietly and wasn't overly agitated. He didn't look at us at all. (On a side note, I do find it really interesting how different witnesses have acted with respect to the jury. Some directed all their answers towards us while some don't even acknowledge us.) I thought he presented fairly well under direct, although not so under cross, but he did remain polite and relatively calm. His testimony was that he did fire the shots, but that he didn't take aim and didn't intend to hurt or kill anyone. His description of events and position of himself and the victim did match what JM had said, but again, this doesn't quite coincide with the ballistics. I think I can see a way in which it could work out, but it doesn't align clearly.
The cross examination was really difficult for me to sit through. Of course the prosecution was harsh, but it kind of felt like the lawyer was a bully going after a scared little kid. Counsel also didn't get much out of him that we hadn't heard, and just seemed to be trying to make him look stupid. Which I don't think he'd really dispute.
I was surprised that we did not hear from the defendant's friend who was present for these events and also seemed to be the instigator for a lot of what went wrong that night.
Closing arguments are tomorrow, then we'll be given the case. If I'm an alternate I won't care at all, because I'm not sure there is a right or even a good answer in this case.
The courtroom next to us ended in a hung jury today, after deliberating for over a week on another murder case. I hope that isn't us.
21 October 2010, Trial Day 15: Today was a complete waste of time. We were supposed to get closing arguments, but at 10:45am, they said that "there wasn't time." But they still made us hang around until after lunch, when we were read our instructions. I think there were 48 separate things? So closing arguments are now set for Monday, and deliberations will follow. We did get detailed descriptions of each crime, and the specific elements that must be met. Also, in the event that we don't find for the stated charges, we are also to consider lesser charges-- for example, for charge one we will look at first degree murder, then second degree murder, then manslaughter one and manslaughter two. We did get a definition of "premeditated" that I don't think I like. It seemed very vague.
2 was excused today because she is meant to go on vacation next week. She had stated this at the beginning, but since the trial was supposed to be over by now they still put her on. But she was excused for her vacation.
25 October 2010, Trial Day 16: Today was closing arguments. The prosecution went first, and the lawyer focused a lot on the instructions that were given to us, and went back and summarized the case to show how they had met every point. It actually made me a little uncomfortable, because he was speaking directly to us whereas everything until now has been directed towards witnesses or the judge. The defense counsel went next. She took FOREVER, going through most of the witnesses and stating whether or not they were unbiased (which the prosecution strongly objected to). It kind of felt like she was just throwing everything imaginable out to us with the hope that something might stick. The thing that made me the most uncomfortable was when the defense attorney called me out with what I had said in voir dire. She had asked me if I would stick to my beliefs and not acquiesce to the rest of the jury, and I had said yes, that if it was something I strongly believed in I would certainly stand up for my position. So she brought that up in what felt like a last-ditch attempt to get even ONE person to believe in the defense's version of events. That she specifically called me out made me very upset, though. Then the prosecution got a rebuttal statement. Ultimately, it's not like the closing arguments are really going to change anyone's opinion.
I did love the assumption that we're all reasonable people. How do they really know?
10 was selected as the alternate. The rest of us will deliberate tomorrow.
26 October 2010, Deliberations and Verdict: Well, that went much faster than I had anticipated and I'm still kind of shocked it's over. We found the defendant guilty on all five charges in three hours.
We went in about 9am, and we elected 15 as our foreman. I thought he did a very good job of guiding the conversation and listening to everyone. We passed around a can from the kitchenette as a talking stick. We first addressed the two charges related to the gun (illegal possession and possession of a stolen firearm) since the defense had already conceded to them. Then we turned to the first charge of murder in the first degree. Everyone was in agreement that it was a murder, rather than the lesser charge of manslaughter. In the state of Washington, there are two ways to fulfill requirements for murder 2: First is intentional murder, where the murder is committed with intent; and second is felony murder, where (while the crime of second degree assault is in commission--which includes threatening someone with a deadly weapon) a person is killed. Clearly the defendant had a weapon which was being used to intimidate a group of people and a person was killed, so at the very least we were going to find for that. There is an exception for justifiable homicide, ie, self defense, but that cannot apply where the person is the first aggressor. The question came down to premeditation, which is the only thing that differentiates murder one from intentional murder two. We all agreed that Washington has a rubbish definition of premeditation. I had always thought that it involved some advance planning, but according to the state it just has to involve some deliberation that lasts longer than a "moment in time"-- but could be any length and could occur immediately before the commission of the crime. I do not understand how this differs from intent, or at least how one could avoid premeditation and still get caught on intent. We debated this for a long time, most of the time we spent in the room. I really had a difficult time with this question, as did 11, 8 and 14, and to a slightly lesser extent 5 and 15.
Again, I really don't think he brought the gun with the intention to kill anyone, although as 12 pointed out, you don't grab a gun unless you mean to use it. I do think it was intended as a threat, but I am not convinced he meant to shot it at anyone. But when he got attacked, I do think he was afraid for his life, and there is little doubt in my mind that had the victim managed to get the gun fully away from the defendant, the defendant would not be standing here today. However, based on: 1) the defendant's original statement to the police that he was standing when he fired the gun; 2) the ballistic and forensic evidence that showed the defendant and the victim were about 9 feet apart when the victim was shot; 3) the location of the entry wound and track through the victim's body it seems that the victim was in retreat and that the imminent danger had passed.
The question of premeditation ultimately came down to the type of weapon, which was a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, meaning that the shooter must empty the spent shell and load a new one into the chamber with a deliberate motion. Four shell casings were found, one a little ways into the yard and the other three right next to each other in a neat line. We can definitively account for three of the rounds: one--a slug--hit the victim in the side (which traveled through both lungs and severed his aorta before coming to rest in his shoulder); and the other two (double-ought buckshot) hit the other victim, once in the wrist and the other in the back of the shoulder. There was debate (both in testimony and in the jury room) about whether or not a warning shot was fired, which would account for the first shell (a missing slug). But even if he didn't fire a shot (or if it had accidentally gone off in the struggle over the gun), there was still an empty shell that had to be ejected. We decided that the thought to fire the gun at somebody followed by the action to reload the gun was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of premeditation.
Given that the first shooting was premeditated, it would be difficult to argue that the following shots were not premeditated. I had a minor reservation in that we had extremely conflicting stories about where the next victim was positioned. If we followed his first statement, that he opened the door and got shot, then it could be possible that the defendant saw the door open and fired at it without seeing any one there. The fact that this victim was also shot in the back of his shoulder made this shooting seem much more intentional, especially with the necessary action of reloading the gun. Further, the fact that this last shell casing was ejected could indicated that the defendant tried to fire again but was out of ammunition, at which point he ran away.
Finally, we had no argument about the third count of assault. I thought it was weird that the same event warranted two counts (assault and attempted murder), but the assault charge was never in question for me.
The bailiff came to let us out for lunch at noon, but we'd pretty much decided at that point. She looked quite surprised that we'd already reached a verdict. I'd read before that if a jury is quick to reach a verdict, it is usually is indicative of a conviction. We stayed in the jury room for the lunch break to take a final vote and fill out the forms. The courtroom was filled when we entered after lunch. I didn't look at the defendant at all, just at the judge. We handed over the verdict forms and the judge read them out loud. He then asked each one of us if this was our individual opinion and the opinion of the jury as a whole. We were then excused back to the jury room. Most of us were pretty shaken up-- 14 was crying, 1 was tearing up. I kind of felt like I was in shock. The judge came back and spoke with us, and we were given certificates of participation. He said he figured it would be murder one or two and that he thought we made a good decision. We were given the opportunity to speak with the lawyers. Most people just wanted to get out, so they left, but I returned to the courtroom with 1, 8, 14 and 15. Only the prosecutors were there. They seemed much nicer and more human when they were interacting with us then as opposed to when putting on the trial. They told us that the defendant's friend--the one we were surprised not to have heard from--had plead out to murder two and sentenced to 11 years. They said they'd offered the same plea to the defendant, but he elected not to take it; and they said they were surprised this case had gone to trial. And it's true, there wasn't much of a defense available; he should have taken the plea. The prosecutors also filled us in on some of his priors-- car theft and something else, but nothing violent. There was, however, an incident that he had filmed on his cell phone camera in which his friend held up a skateboarder at gun point. No charges were brought in this case because the friend has an identical twin and it was not possible to determine which one actually committed the crime. At any rate, it seems like these two were on a path of poor life decisions that was going to end badly at some point. The prosecutors also told us that the defendant is looking at 55-60 years in sentencing, which will most likely be the rest of his life. It kind of made me sick-- I mean, what kind of life is that? I guess I want to think that he's still young, he could turn his life around, but he doesn't have that opportunity. But it's not like our prisons are good for rehabilitation anyway. And it's not like the guy he killed was an upstanding member of the community-- he was a serious meth addict with swastikas tattooed on him (the judge told us he had disallowed photographs showing these tattoos).
I am very unhappy with our decision for first degree murder. It makes sense and I don't regret it, but I am uncomfortable with it. As 8 said when I talked with him, if there was any way around it we would have gone for it, but given the definitions in the law this seems like the most logical outcome. I accept it, but I don't have to like it.
The Seattle Times has a brief bit about the case, which is here if anyone cares to see it. The details are not exact (especially the bit about the second victim getting hit by stay gunfire, since we found the defendant guilty of attempted murder on that), but we still made the news.
EDIT: Sentencing occurred 17 Dec. The defendant received 50 years.