Yesterday, I sat for jury duty selection, which ended up taking the whole day. The case was fairly interesting, so I'll share what I can, and go through the day.
https://www.traviscountytx.gov/images/courts/blackwell-thurman-center.jpg
The 450th Criminal District Court is located at the Blackwell-Thurman Criminal Justice Center( pictured above). I got downtown about an hour earlier than the 9am summons time, so I wandered over to the Capital building and had breakfast at the Capital Grill in the capital; not many people there, and I had a bacon omelet, which *actually* had bacon and cheese in every bite.
So far, so good!
# At the courthouse
By the time I walked back, got through the security line, and checked in, it was 9am...time to start.
So I waited...until 9:55, when they finally seated us.
The lawyers *continued* to jawjack for another 10 minutes, and somebody on the selection panel kept farting. This is Steve's impatient and fairly grossed out face.
# Here come da judge
https://www.traviscountytx.gov/images/courts/urrirtiab_215-sm.jpg
The judge explained the Travis County court system clearly and quickly. The 450th for which I was summoned deals with felonies in general, but also with misdemeanor charges against elected officials. Finally, the glimpse of something interesting appears for the future.
***Oh please, g!d, let me take part in hanging a politician!!***
He then gave us the oath. He also explained the necessity of admitting bias when we answered questions, and he added...
>We have a name for those people that think they will get out of jury duty by saying nothing during the selection process...we call them jurors.
He named the accused (which I will not do, but I will followup on the case, and compare the court findings to the selection process); we were informed of the charge at this time:
**Aggravated Assault**
The judge did explain that the lawyers would not discuss the specifics of the case during *voir dire* (the selection process). He laid out the possible time frame the case would likely take. He also gave us a choice between taking a short break and leaving early today, or a long lunch. We of course took the short break option, whereupon he told us the panels ***NEVER*** take the lunch option.
By 10:20, the judge rehashed the jury qualifications and exemptions; also explain that any juror could be challenged for cause, and in addition that each side (prosecution and defense) had 10 peremptory strikes they could use.
The he got to the rights of the accused.
# The rights of the accused
+ An *indictment* serves to inform the accused of the charges against him.
+ A *grand jury* is run entirely by the State.
The accused/defendant is usually not present.
His lawyer is usually not present.
The accused and his lawyer are not allowed to be at the grand jury hearing at the same time.
The accused has no right to present evidence.
An indictment does not have to be a unanimous jury decision.
The standard of State evidence is *probable cause*.
+ The judge made a remark about this standard of evidence as far as the actual trial, in comparison to CPS hearings
>The State considers that your liberty is more important than your children!
+ He noted that Texas had made a change in the definition of *reasonable doubt*. The court no longer gives a definition to the jury during the trail...***reasonable doubt is an individual jury decision!***
+ ...that the common wisdom that proof must be ***beyond the shadow of a doubt*** is NOT *reasonable doubt*.
+ ...that the saying ***innocent UNTIL proven guilty*** is incorrect, and should be looked at as ***innocent UNLESS proven guilty***
Overall, I think the standards the judge discussed were for the benefit of the accused, which is only right. The he moved on to the 5th Amendment.
https://sophosnews.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/shutterstock_1120355471-compressor.jpg?w=780&h=408&crop=1
# Taking the 5th
I will admit that there were considerations in pleading the 5th I had never considered. Again, the common wisdom is that only guilty people take the 5th. However, there were a couple of points the judge discussed.
+ Education levels between lawyers and accused.
The judge noted that lawyers typically had about 18 years of education, as opposed to defendants who average 8 years of education; the note I wrote at this point...*retard defendants vs hotshot lawyers*
+ That the #1 fear of most people is public speaking.
+ That defendants could be taking the advice of professionals (their own lawyers) not to speak.
All in all, good reasons to reconsider the presumption of guilt when people plead the 5th.
# The prosecution
At 10:50, the prosecution started her presentation and jury questioning. Basically, the prosecutor would make her point, then ask a portion of the juror candidates to answer a question regarding that point. I found a couple of things annoying about her presentation: first, she used way too much cultural reference in her argument (I like the *Parks and Recreation* TV show, but I don't want to hear a *voir dire* question about a fucking episode of it); secondly, she talked about her dog too much (I only like animals based upon the seasoning and/or gravy).
She went over the definitions of **Assault Causing Bodily Injury** ,**Bodily Injury**, **Aggravated Assault**, and **Serous Bodily Injury**. I'll drop the links to the applicable Texas laws una momento.
The jist of which was to give the range of actions which could be charged. Another point was to establish the standard of...
> intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another
Another point re: Agg. Assault is that there only needs to be intent to assault, not necessarily intent to cause serious bodily injury.
Going back to my complaint about her use of pop culture, she used the episode of Elizabeth Lambert in a soccer match to illustrate possible assault.
https://youtu.be/bjV2D4s2kDU
*Now, we will come back to this later*
+ She also discussed **Causation**
Criminal responsibility if the results of the action would not have happened without the action of the defendant.
*It was about now that "the defender is an asshole" starts appearing multiple times in my notes. More later*
However, if the concurrent cause was sufficient on it's own to cause the result, then criminal liability isn't there. I didn't bother getting an example due to the confusion and antics of the defender here.
+ Mental State
She went into an explanation of the different standards:
**INTENTIONALLY**: when it is a conscious effort to achieve results
**KNOWINGLY**: knowing the results would happen
**RECKLESSLY**: aware of but ignores risk
> the difference between **KNOWINGLY** and **RECKLESSLY** is knowing what *would* happen versus what *could* happen.
+ She went on to discuss and ask questions regarding signs of a pending assault, as well as post assault
I got my first question here, which was *what are signs that an assault may occur*; I answered pretty much the same as the person before me, "that aggressive body language is displayed".
I really started losing patience with my fellow jurors now.
My notes...
>It's the SAME fucking body language
>Godddamn I hate stupid people
x2
>STFU STFU STFU
>long string of irrelevant bullshit and excuse making
>IR fucking RELEVANT +1 +1 +1 +1
+ Then we get back on track; the lack of a "fighting words" defense, Texas self-defense law, and the relation of the two.
+ The prosecutor then asks whether the homeless should be held to the same legal standard as everybody else.
Filed under *no shit*
+ She moved on to asking
-Who had committed assault
-Who had been assaulted
-Who had family and friends that had been assaulted
It was interesting in that 4 of the 79 had been victims of assault; 3/4 were women who didn't wish to discuss it, and the last was a guy who had been stabbed multiple times with a screwdriver when confronting a property thief.
# The prosecutor went over standards of proof
She explained the different levels of standards for proof
+ Reasonable Suspicion
+ Probable Cause
+ Preponderance of Evidence
+ Clear and Convincing
+ Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
She stated that
>There will always be a little doubt because you were not there.
The defender FINALLY made a reasonable objection at this point; that the prosecutor was *defining* reasonable doubt. The judge overruled him.
The prosecutor gave an example; there was a picture of a puzzle which had mostly been filled in. It was her dog, of course. The first example was that you could see that it was a dog from what had been filled in. The second example was that it would be impossible to say that the left ear had been damaged or not, because that area of the puzzle had not been filled in. It was a good example, overall.
+ She moved on to the question of witness credibility.
+ Finally, she returned to the question of the 5th, and asked if anyone could not respect that right.
The defender objected to one panelee ( his second *good* objection)
>if he cant affirm to be fair on this, he should be challenged
The judge overruled this; I don't understand the legalese, but I would bet the judge felt this should be a peremptory strike, not a challenge.
# The break - 15 minute break.
Time to take a leak, get a little water, and hop on CIABook for a minute
# The defense
*I have a suspicion that ONE reason I didn't make the jury was that I may have whispered **jackass** a little too loudly, too often, during the defender's shenanigans*. I have heard that many defense lawyers are frustrated actors (forgot where I heard that), and this one fit THAT bill.
This was a private firm for the defense, which is surprising, due to the fact I suspected that the defendant might be homeless (from the prosecutors *voir dire* questioning: see more downpage).
He started out by elaborately thanking us; for my own part, he could have thanked us by shutting up and getting the defense case moving. *STFU* appears a lot in my notes.
It was during this phase that "death" became part of the discussion. Although neither lawyer could refer to the specifics of the case, the judge kept reminding them both that death does not play a part in the charges.
He noted that he would be asking HARD questions, and STUPID questions. These turned out to be a series of binary questions to which he asked for a show of hands on the first position. I did find this to be an effective means of getting a lot of responses to crucial questions in a short amount of time.
At one point he made a misrepresentation about the video of the soccer player the prosecutor had shown; she did not challenge him on that. His claim was that the assaulted player had grabbed the other by the mish prior to the assault. Take a look at the video. Didn't happen, as she grabbed the *shorts* of the aggressor.
+ He asked if we might be more likely to look at things in terms of 1)poor transient or 2)things happen
+ He asked if people were more incredulous that 1) Donald Trump was elected or 2) adults called in sick or took off from class due to this. I suspected that this was a means of screening us "mean ol republicans" from the pool. I didn't keep a full account, but certainly none of us in group 2 that were sitting near me got on the jury.
+ He asked if people had a view that 1) you NEVER punch or 2) reserve the right to punch
+ He then asked who had never hit another person. Zero people answered that ;>
+ He asked us to fill this in:
Any human system is ______
My answer, was of course, ***fucked***. However, the correct answer was ***fallible***. I suppose I was lucky I was not called upon.
+ He then went into a long, and IMO, too complicated, analogy between classes of quadrilaterals and laws. He added some showmanship, and kept returning to the point by requesting the same answer from a panelee referring to this clusterfuck of an analogy throughout the rest of his presentation.
https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/1ed46917-a601-46a7-afb4-baf6442bef47_hierarchy2.jpg
*NOT his slide*
+ He asked why it mattered if the state overcharged the accused
+ He discussed "LIO", lesser included offenses, and returned to the *intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly* point.
+ He discussed other issues that might affect a jurors decision
-sanctity of life
-public order
+ He got into an even more complicated question, which the prosecutor and the judge both interjected several times.
The basic question was
>would you refuse to acquit on a lesser charge?
I didn't understand what he was getting at, and I asked him if the jury could find guilty to lesser charges, and the defender noted that the judge had the option to provide a range of offenses that the jury could find for.
The crux of what he was getting at became apparent to me later, and I'll get into that later.
+ He wrapped it up by explaining that HIS job today was to ask good questions to make a better seklection of jurors, to explain the law, and to find bias.
# I didn't get on the jury
https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/assets/mc/_external/2015_08/actually-they-were-mostly-wome.jpg
I took 13 pages of notes, and I was hoping to get on for the experience, especially in a serious case. Whether it was for whispering too loud, or for the trump question, or for whatever other reason, I wasn't selected.
It was raining like hell when I got out. I got soaked walking the block to my car, but it was right before rush hour would have started, and I didn't want to get caught in that, so a soaking it was ;>
# And after the fact
I suspected from the tenor of the selection questions that one bum had beat another bum to death.
I looked it up while writing this post, and lo and behold. Exactly what happened.
I have no idea why the defense is trying this case. If I were the guilty...I mean the accused...I'd plead to agg assault in a heartbeat considering the facts of the case.
AFTER the trail has been completed, I'll go ahead and do a writeup. I really don't think media (including myself, in this case) should ID people unless a ***guilty*** verdict has been rendered or a conviction has been secured.
# Thanks for reading, and I hope you learned something! Follow me for more!