www.geocities.com/patriciointp/
On July 8, 2002, I became a juror in a trial for Sangamon County, Illinois. What follows are the events leading up to that date, the selection process, the trial, and the thoughts and opinions we jurors had.
The Summons
I received my first summons for jury duty near the end of my second quarter of my BBA program at Robert Morris College in Springfield, IL. When I got it, I was upset because of this. I have always wanted to be a juror for the experience of doing the unique responsibility we have where we have the power in our hands to say "Guilty" or "Not guilty". However, being a college student makes you unable to serve and college for me is more important than anything. So RMC and me contacted our jury commission on this. The result was a promise to give me another summons during my only week off for the summer from my year-round college.
They fulfilled their promise. My first summons involved a murder case in which they told me who the accused was so that I can avoid the media reports. This summons had no name. I knew of a woman at college who also received a summons but she never told me what was on hers and if she was getting a summons this time too.
On the night before we should show up, I called a number with a prerecorded message saying that we should call again at 11:15 AM to see if we need to attend at 12:30 PM. I rather just show up and get it over with or cancel the meeting than call that number over and over again. What if something comes up and we can't call? What will happen if someone doesn't show? Jail? I don't know. But I called and they said all jurors 0 to 45 need to come and 46 to 145 don't. My number is 28.
I inhaled lunch and left.
The Selection Process
I arrived at the parking lot roughly 30 minutes early as recommended in the recording. I went in and the first thing I had to do was go through a metal detector. Still being young and still having new experiences, this was my first time I had to do this. The person in front of me put some things to be x-rayed only to have it stuck on this side. She went through the detector and then asked, "Where are my things?" I said, "It is stuck over here", not wanting to touch it. The security guard used his hand-held detector to push it through and one item was still stuck. By now a huge line appeared behind me and people were going through before me. I then tried to go in myself before I realize I need to put my keys in a basket. I then proceeded to find Room 404.
There they used a scanner bar on my summons to check me in and validated my parking ticket. While waiting, I read a pamphlet. One of the things it said was that the selection process is done with register voters. Logical. Registered voters are civic-duty citizens and therefore more likely to show up. I brought with me my college schedule in case they wanted to see it. I hoped to see that other college student I mentioned earlier but she was a no show. What I did saw though was another college student who I knew nothing about and another person whom I hadn't saw in a long time. We all saw a video on what to expect and then we all went up to the fifth floor.
After some introductory remarks from the judge, he introduced everyone else in the courtroom. I always view bailiffs to be policemen but his bailiff appeared to be in his 60s or 70s and wore a tie. The judge then introduced what this case will be about: we have to decide if a man shot a dog in self-defense (not guilty) or did so with reckless endangerment and animal cruelty (guilty). Next, 15 to 20 individuals where called to the jury area. He then proceeded to ask a glob of questions to them as a group, including information about pets, guns, and beliefs we have related to the case. He then questioned them individually. This took over an hour. He asked the lawyers to approach and then called for a break. Upon returning, 8 were chosen and the rest was dismissed minus 2. He then called four more. I was the third one called.
This time though the questioning lasted only 10 minutes. When asked if I have any pets, he asked if my 2 cats and 2 dogs got into any fights. "Lots of barking and chasing, but no fights" I said. I remind the court that I had only this week off from school as a precaution even though they did say it should only last 2 or 3 days. The judge said, "Some one wasn't paying attention." Now who is that? Was he talking about the jury commission for not noticing that fact (they did), me for not hearing that this should only last for 2 or 3 days (I did, I was just warning them in case it didn't), or the judge? That remark still annoys me.
He talked to the lawyers as before and made four of us jurors... myself included. I was lead back to the jury's private room where the others complained "That didn't take long". There were now 12 of us and they were now selecting one alternate juror. Juror 11 was the person I mentioned that I have not seen for a long time. After he arrived, we were asked to wait the more. During the waiting, it was revealed that juror 11 and another one had a number 46 - 145 and didn't have to show. Both were complaining. Then we came in and saw all the potential jurors gone. There was a recorder now. And there was an envelope with a pencil and notebook. We were asked to stand and we were sworn in. At that point we became like whining school children to the most important element in the courtroom that the lawyers had to convince to come to a verdict. We were now jurors.
The Trial
The court then proceeded to start the trial. I started to take through notes. Juror 13, our only alternate, didn't. During opening remarks, the lawyers treated us like we were their superiors. I guess we were, although the judge is still the head honcho. As I mentioned before, the case involves a man, who I will call K, who shot and killed a pit bull that no one claimed. According to the prosecutor, he did this maliciously to this "puppy" and without regard to another family, who I will call the W family, who witness the incident. The defendant said this pit bull was a vicious dog that kept attacking K's Doberman even after Mr. and Mrs. K spraying them with a hose, tried separating them with a birdhouse pole, and stun it with a stun gun.
The prosecutor then called the first witness, Mr. W. The main thing from his testimony was that he heard the incident shortly after the "puppy" left his yard from playing with his children and their nonviolent dog. He said he was very afraid from the violent dog sounds he heard in addition to a "shock" sound, but only SAW the incident once: K's dog had the pit bull by the neck.
That was the only witness that day. The next one did arrive, opening the courtroom doors, and the defense lawyer yelled "Permission to remove that individual!" or something like that. After being told to leave, some juror said something to the bailiff. The bailiff told him to go to the jury room and then told the rest of us where to leave. Now, if that juror said something like "I just recognized Mr. W!" or something else that can get him dismissed, we have no alternates. But maybe he just forgot something. At that time, I didn't know.
Upon dismissal, I went to my place of work to update them. The first thing I shown them was my badge. One of the two managers said "Your a judge... er... juror!". If I were a judge, I wouldn't be talking to you. I told them that with my next day to work being Friday and with today being Monday doing a trial expected to not take long, I might not have to miss a day of work. The other manager then asked, "What is the trial about?" I replayed, "I took an oath of silence! But... [closing door behind me and saying a loud whisper] it is the only trial going on. If you find out what that trial is, that is what I am involved in."
The following morning I saw a security guard looking around the building for anything suspicious. She found a small coin purse. I don't know if it had a miniature bomb or not. I was the first to arrive to the jury room and I looked around. No clock, camera, or anything but doughnuts, coffee, water, a table and chairs. Later I found a pamphlet on deliberating, but something was blacked out in it. When the other jurors arrived, they continued to joke about our situation. One got lost. Another dropped her badge on the ground at an inconvenient location (don't recall where). One person left her glasses in her car and wondered what to do if she needs them. Another wondered what to do in case of an emergency like a fire.
When the trial started again, the next two witnesses were two daughters of the W family, 16 and 12, who was 14 and 10 at the time of the incident. One juror seemed to be fighting to stay awake. When the 12-year-old sworn in, she said, "I guess". Her testimony was very quiet compared to Mrs. W, the following witness. The new elements of the trial involved several pictures that was defense exhibits and where exactly the children were.
First, there was some confusion as to when the pictures were taken: then during the fall or more recently. In addition, there was an obstruction that could block the view from W's yard to K's yard. Mrs. W said that this obstruction wasn't even built yet at that time.
Second, as part of the reckless endangerment accusation, where W's children where at the time was questioned thoroughly. Everyone said that the kids were in their car or most likely in the car in front of K's house. Initially, Mr. W was to send the kids to school, but when the incident started, he asked her to so he can talk to the police. At that time Mrs. W already called but someone else already called 911. I can't remember whom because it was objected and the judged told us to forget what she said and wipe it clear from our memories. But I do remember being thoroughly surprised at her partial response. Anyway, it is believed the kids, crying all this time, where in front of K's house when he shot the dog. What was most interesting though is that one of the daughters said, "We wanted to take pictures." Huh?
Next up was the deputy who arrived to investigate the shooting. One great concern for the prosecution was that the pit bull was in from of W's youngest child's window. They hoped to prove that K actually hunted the dog down to kill it. The deputy confirmed the dog's location and said something weird. "There was a hot dog with the pit bull." Huh? The dog also had an eye missing. During cross-examination, the recorder stopped saying, "I can't do this" when both the defense attorney and the deputy were talking at the same time.
The last person the prosecution called was the veterinarian who examined the dog after its death. There was a lot of talk about how the dog was injured until the defense asked him, "Was this pit bull a puppy or full grown." The Ws kept calling it a puppy. The veterinarian called it a full-grown dog weighing 40 pounds. The prosecution rests and the defendant, after break, recalled this person to discuss pit bull behavior and "human-aggressive" vs. "animal-aggressive" behavior.
Next was Mrs. K. She testified that the pit bull indeed never gave up and went into detail what happened up close. There was more arguing about the validity of the pictures and more talk about where the Ws were located. One new thing was a confirmation that Mr. K called 911 because "an injured dog was out on the loose" and there was a fourth dog that thankfully didn't join the fight. She also mentioned that the pit bull had the Doberman by the lower jaw. From W's distance, could this have looked like the Doberman had the pit bull, as was said in Mr. W's testimony?
Finally, Mr. K himself took the stand, waving his right to remain silent. Besides defending his right to defend himself, he also mentioned that his medication causes his blood to thin and how the pistol he used was loaded. The first two bullets were birdshot and the next a 22, 2 birdshots, a 22, etc. The first two didn't fire and the third, the 22, did.
After that, the prosecution recalled Mrs. W to discredit the defense pictures. Was the obstruction there during the incident or was it built later? The defense countered with some the originals that Mr. K took. It was shown that it was uploaded onto his PC only weeks after the incident. During cross-examination, the prosecutor attacked saying, "Why did you thought you needed to take those pictures if you thought you were justified in killing the pit bull and why did you wait 2 weeks till doing it?" K said, "Because I took those immediately after the state press charges against me."
After breaking so everyone can prepare for closing arguments (by now, all jurors where complaining that there is more breaks than actual court time. One made a phone call to check on her children with someone listening in to make sure she doesn't talk about the case), we were told that the accusation of reckless endangerment was thrown out and he is only being accused of cruelty to animals. The prosecution tried to develop sympathy for the "puppy", while the defense closing argument focused on everything K did before shooting it, that the Ws where to far away to observe it and therefore doesn't know all that what happened, and that K was genuinely afraid.
The Deliberation
Before our dismissal, the judge excused our only alternate, who I think was the only one who didn't took any notes. I wonder what he was thinking. When we all sat down, the following were said:
"Okay, who should be the foreperson?"
"You."
[pause] "Okay, ... ... how should we do this? Ballot? Voice? ..."
[another juror] "Raising of hands."
"Okay... who says he is guilty?"
[no one raises their hands for 3 or 4 seconds]
Then one woman partially raise her hand and said, "Well I think he isn't but one thing bothers me. How did the pit bull got into W's yard?" After that, a conservation started which all pointed to the same conclusion: the state did a horrible job with the "burden of proof" clause. I don't know how long we were in there since there was no clock to tease us, but I guess it was 10 or so minutes. Although we all believe he was justified in his actions, we did go over the evidence after this person expressed this concern on how the pit bull got into W's yard.
So we returned with a not guilty verdict.
Additional Thoughts
Throughout the trial, many jurors made comments and I had thoughts about being jurors and, after deciding not guilty, the trial. Here they are in no particular order:
Before the trial ended
After the trial ended
I think most of us jurors will agree on this: instead of closing arguments, let the jurors call witnesses and question them. This, leaving our notes in the courtroom (which causes our forgetfulness and being unable to "clean" it), and frequently being locked up in that jury room was our biggest complaints about our justice system.
Brian Ogan
www.geocities.com/patriciointp/