Blog of Chris

I’ve spent the weekend cooling down in the woods of the Patapsco Valley, so I’ll calmly explain how a Baltimore city jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict in a case that involved a young inner-city crack dealer. Sorry, an alleged young inner-city crack dealer.

There were members of our jury who were too young or immature to take their civic duty seriously, and did not understand the oath they took stating they would be unbiased, and reach a conclusion based on reasonable arguments and the evidence that was presented.

After a little bit of back and forth, the more reasonable members of the jury convinced most of them that they were not applying reason when coming to their conclusion, and they joined the majority who desired to submit a guilty verdict.

One juror, who was busy text messaging through most of the deliberations, not participating in the discussions, and who was particularly guarded when asked any question, or asked to argue his side of the case, simply refused to call the defendent guilty on the grounds that he does not trust the police.

Despite his defiance, he was willing to go along with a unanimous guilty verdict because it would end the trial and get him off of jury duty so he could get back to his life.  (truly virtuous, right?)

So, when we deliver our verdict, a “polling of the jury” is requested, where each juror is individually asked if he or she is in agreement with the verdict, and of course, our rogue juror stated that he was not.  He told the rest of us that he could not bring himself to convict the defendant when they asked him the question directly like that.  This led to another full day of deliberations where he sat in the corner playing with his phone and trying to ignore our arguments for him to change his mind. Searching for “Hung Jury” on Wikipedia led me to the Allen Charge, which I found pretty interesting.  It basically says in nice words “If you are in the extreme minority on a hung jury, then you are probably not thinking reasonably.”

Here’s an excerpt from the Allen Charge:

If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

Apparently, judges are supposed to give this text to a hung jury if they are unable to reach a verdict (in some jurisdictions).  Our judge did not cite the Allen Charge, but I found it on my own in hopes that it might help.  It did not.

Thus, we were unable to come to a unanimous decision, and the judge sent us home after 3 days of trial that probably cost taxpayers a LOT of money and accomplished absolutely nothing… all because they let unreasonable people participate in a process that requires and open and reasonable mind.  It’s ok, it’s just crack cocaine in Baltimore.

I would like to think that this can’t possibly happen again if they retry the case… the more I think about it, it seems that the lawyers know exactly what they are doing when they select a jury.  The defense needs this type of idiocy.

-C

Guess who has to miss yet another day of work to participate in the legal system?  Me.  The system is flawed, and when I am at liberty to discuss the particulars, I will let you in on some really sickening things that are going down in Baltimore City.  Until then, know that sometimes a Jury of your peers means a Jury of complete buffoons who do everything they told you not to do and violate their oaths by bringing personal feelings into the deliberation room.  I guess that’s why the lawyers get to pick us.  Idiots are easy to convince if you put the right shiny objects in front of them.  Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean anything to unreasonable people.

On a less hostile note, I think it is funny how they pump in static over the speakers when counsel approaces the bench, so you can’t hear what they’re talking about.  Muzak costs too much, apparently.  I wonder if they paid too much of my tax money for a static machine, specifically designed and marketed for use in courtrooms.

I spent my lunch break in the land records office, looking up transfers of my house.  It turns out that as recently as the 1940’s, the houses on my street were not referred to in the records by a house number, but by their size and distance from the nearest intersection.  What I really wanted to find out was what year this house was built, as I have seen three different numbers in three different places. (the dates range from 1890 to 1913). I was not able to find the answer, but now I know where to look.

Well, I am off to the courthouse again tomorrow for the exciting finale… or maybe not.

-C

Today I had the joy of being herded around the Mitchell Courthouse like cattle in the demeaning, exhausting and demoralizing experience that is petit Jury Duty in our fair city of Baltimore.  This process is a shimmering beacon of beaurocratic inefficiency for the world to behold.  This whole take a number, go here, verify this, sign this, swear this, take a lunch break, here’s-your-compensation-which-will-not-cover-your-lunch-and-parking fiasco was comparable to only one experience in my life, which would be behing herded around by the United States Army.  The difference is, when the Army herds you around, there are plenty of soldiers telling bullshit stories about “no shit, there I was…” and making fun of the pogue medical and admin soldiers doing the processing.  The BS is entertaining, and thus makes the process run much more smoothly.

I am not known for my ability to sit still for very long, so at the risk of missing my number being called, I explored the courthouse, occasionally stopping back in the Juror waiting room to “check in”.  The guy behind the desk kept giving me the evil eye, as I was upsetting the natural balance of things by constantly coming and going, and possibly not obeying the strict orders he laid out for us AT LENGTH when we first arrived (and were forced to watch this Jury Duty orientation video from the mid 1980’s).

I wandered into the land records library and looked up some information on my property.  I could have spent all day in there looking up old maps, but I had to get back to sitting around waiting.

The movies they had playing (I have to give them credit for the A/V setup, which allowed announcements and videos to be played in 3 rooms on 2 floors) were Meet the Parents and Happy Feet.  I hate Ben Stiller with the burning passion of 1000 suns, and was in no way entertained by dancing CGI penguins, so I tried to catch some Z’s in the back of the room.

At around 3 they called a bunch of us to sit on a Jury Panel.  I kind of felt like the price is right, except instead of winning money, you go to another room to sit and wait forever.  They whittle down the 60 people in the room to 11 jurors.  Just when they have a full jury selected, the lawyers want to change it up for some reason, and then they pick a few more from the bunch and see if they will work out.  I was the LAST one picked, at 5:00 pm, and now I have to come back tomorrow to actually hear the trial.

To be honest, I was hoping to get selected, as I want to sit in on a trial and be a part of the process, but i was under the impression that it would be a “same day” affair.  So, now that I must sacrifice another crucial day of self employment to the City, you get to hear me bitch about it on my blog.

Oh yeah… when they dismissed all the jurors who were not selected, someone started cheering and clapping, and got himself a good stern talking to by a very pissed off judge.  I thought it was hilarious.

Tune in tomorrow for part II

-C

I just watched this, and it was effing great.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/