This is actually the
building next to the courthouse I was at,
but it looked a lot cooler. LOL
Of course I'm
writing every detail I can remember about this.
To everyone who likes watching court stuff on TV, this
entry is for you. It's long, it's surprising, and it's
quite interesting. Here's a bit of a
"trailer" for it I guess.
Rather random
since of course I can't take pics/video in the
coutroom. It'll all make sense after you read
everything.
Alright... the
story:
Thursday, March
1st, 2011
Am I the only
happy juror? This is cool as shit to me. Somehow
I have never been selected for jury duty in 18
years of adult life - so I"m really excited. Granted,
I'm unemployed living off savings from my IMAX stock
and oh yeah, the rest of my life is awesome, so why
wouldn't I be in a good mood. Yay I even get to
hang out in downtown LA... I never have a reason to do
THAT. I'm just happy to have direction for the day!
And if I get on a case? SHWEEEEET. Everyone I know
says they never get picked, but I'm pretty determined
to get on this thing. And if everyone else is
determined not to? I'll probably be
chosen.
After three hours
of waiting (where I was able to just work on website
stuff) I get my number and I am 1 of 35 people vying
for 14 slots. Contrary to what I had heard from
others, they brought everyone in and asked everyone
questions... and then kept EVERYONE there no
matter how obvious it was they weren't going to be
chosen. Particularly pissing off the dude next to me
who straight up said: "you guys are killing me on
time, please let me be dismissed I have a lot of work
to do.". By the end of the day, even though it was
clear some people didn't need to come back, the judge
had us ALLLLL come back the next morning just to hear
who was selected. LMAO. Judge was totally fuckin' with
that guy. But man, what lengths some people will go to
to get out. They ask you if you know any cops or
lawyers as well as anyone who was arrested or had a
crime committed against them. Inevitably everyone has
(except me strangely - though I completely forgot my
co-worker was murdered
in 2006) .
But the people that really want out (and clearly it
works) embellish shit big time. One girl had been
robbed (this case is for attempted robbery), and said
that even the word "robbery" scared her. LOL. She just
couldn't POSSIBLY try this case fairly. Even if I
didn't want to be on the jury I would just tell the
truth and see what they pick. You know? Like, what's
the point of embellishing or being all over-dramatic
about it? But again, the judge never let anyone go.
All 35 had to come back the next day. Ha.
Friday, March
2nd, 2011
So the dismissals
start with the defense and prosecution going back and
forth and excusing people. It went as assumed, and I
was on the jury. Strangely, they didn't excuse one
woman who clearly couldn't speak a lick of English.
They excused most people in this category, but for
some reason they were fine with her. I'm thinking "oh,
great this'll be fun to work with later.". Finally the
judge pulled them aside and supposedly explained they
should let her go. Made me think the lawyers were
inept. We had our 12 and 2 alternates and boom we went
right into the case. Cool.
I've always
thought of criminal cases being about whether or not a
crime has happened. What I never realized is they have
jury trials on attempted crimes? Wow. How the hell are
we ever going to agree on this? The entire thing is
circumstantial evidence, it's all here-say, all
testimony... yet it went to trial - so clearly we can
convict this guy on that. The defense isn't saying
"there's no evidence so this is a non-issue.". So
apparently that's a part of the law I never knew. Then
again I guess I really never thought about it. Clearly
if I guy attempts to rob a bank and fails, it's still
a crime. So here's a quick description of what the
prosecution says happened:
A 19 year old kid
and his father are walking back from a taco stand and
a guy is yelling obscenities at the kid. The kid turns
around and the guy gets in his face, says "gimme
everything you got" and has his hand in his pocket
simulating that he has a gun. The father comes around
the car and gets his kid in the car and the dude spits
on him as they take off. They call the police (who
find him still around there amazingly) arrest him, and
here we are...
The defense, in
their opening argument, says this was a heated
argument about cutting in line and though it was
intense, at no time did he say "give me your money" or
simulate having a gun.
Immediately I'm
thinking this is nuts. How the hell do we determine
THIS? So the prosecution brings the kid up and right
off the bat asks if the kid had ever seen this guy
before he came up to him as he was walking back to his
car. He says no, and in the cross-examination the
defense never addresses that.
Uhm.
If your defense is
that this was an argument about cutting in line...
Wouldn't you bring that up? The father paints the same
picture, though he admits he saw the dude going crazy
on the vendor when the kid was transporting drinks and
food back to the car (the kid's mom and girlfriend
were in the car). Shockingly, the defense NEVER says
something like: "isn't it true that you were arguing
about your place in line and he came up to you as you
were walking away and continued to argue?". Nothing.
All the defense does is try to show discrepancies
between the account the kid gave to the police and the
testimony he just gave. There are legitimate issues
there (he told police he was pushed, then gave
testimony that he was never touched, etc.). All of
that would be perfect to set up reasonable doubt... if
there was an earlier fight/argument. Without that, why
does it matter? Why else would the defendant come up
behind the kid in a taunting way? The defense never
contests that he came up to the kid. Never contests
that he was yelling obscenities, that he was calling
the kid a pussy, never contests that the kid had never
seen him before that moment... so what the hell was
the point of the opening argument saying it was a
fight about cutting in line?
And then we cut
for a weekend recess. Grrrrrrr. The cool thing is that
it was like a cliffhanger in a TV show and I really
couldn't wait to hear what happened the next day.
Presumably this will be over on Monday... but will
everyone agree? I'm certain there're will be people
that say he's innocent simply because it's so
flimsy... I mean, he didn't end up having a gun, he
never touched the kid - you can get convicted for
that? Someone yells at you, you say I was being robbed
and that's it? Yet... What the fuck was this guy doing
running up behind some kid and yelling at him if he
had never seen him before? Ae they pleading insanity?
LOL. All sorts of questions in my head and I can't
wait to see what happens on Monday.
Monday, March
5th, 2011
What the shit was
that. I don't even know what to say. This is the
biggest cluster-fuck ever. If you have reasonable
doubt that the lawyers are idiots what's your
verdict?
So right off the
bat - they put the defendant on the stand! Wooo hoo!
This is the big ass moment. Right away, the defense
goes into the fight about the kid cutting in line. As
if the earlier testimony from the kid never having
seen the defendant before never happened. I'm
immediately struck with - "why the fuck didn't the
defense ask THE KID about this?" To me? That's the
entire case. If there was an argument before hand and
he had ANY other reason to go up to the kid... then
there's reasonable doubt. If he just randomly went up
to the kid at his car? The only motivation would be to
rob him. So they describe the situation and of course
their side of the story is abso-fuckin-lutely
different than last week. Kid tried to cut into line,
he told him to go to the back. After the defendant got
his food and had eaten it, he noticed the kid staring
him down (the kid is half this dude's size - lol) in
the back seat of the car and when the kid got OUT of
the car, the defendant went up to him and got in his
face about staring him down. He admits he was drunk
and intimidating but says he never attempted to get
money from him. The worst he did was throw a fake
punch to scare him. And since he establishes that they
had the argument in the line before? This all kind of
makes sense. I couldn't wait for the prosecution to go
at him...
...and then SHE
completely goes along with the fact that there was an
argument even though her own witness said she had
NEVER seen him before. ?!?! Who the hell isn't doing
their job here? What? Huh? And then, you ready for
this? This deserves another paragraph:
They go for a
sidebar, with the defendant still on the stand, he
turns to me and says "I didn't ____". I look confused,
and he repeats it, smiling "I didn't ____" I think he
said I didn't "do it" or I didn't "touch him".
Obviously I didn't ask him to SPEAK UP BECAUSE WHAT
THE FUCK IS HAPPNENING? I look around and no one
notices it... I look at him like he's nuts and I smile
as if to say "are you actually trying to talk to a
JUROR right now?" They come back in and I'm still
shaking my head and I'm thinking should I raise my
hand? Should I mention this? At this point I'm dying
to see how this ends and if I mention this will I be
let go? Earlier in the day I was suppressing the urge
to take a picture in the courtroom for ths site
because I didn't want to do anything to get thrown off
the jury and now this? I ain't missin' the end of
this! Do I say something in the deliberation room?!!?!
FUCK. How bizarre.
They continue, the
prosecution decides to center on the fact that at no
time did the defendant say "I didn't do that" when he
was arrested. In fact the defendant claims he was
never told why he was arrested. Which is kinda hard to
believe because the defense (I assume to make us feel
bad for him) admitted he had two prior felonies and
was on parole. You're telling me this guy got arrested
without ever asking what for? The lawyer brought this
up and the guy did look like he was lying. Like, even
though the defense brought up that he had been
convicted of two felonies prior when the prosecution
asked him if he had ever been arrested? He paused for
a long time, and then finally said yes - like he
wasn't sure. He was also asked if he had any tattoos
on his head (it was brought up to show he was
intimidating to the kid) and he said no... even though
I was looking right the fuck at huge tattoo on his
head. I think he assumed he let his hair grow long
enough that it covered it up but I could almost read
it. "South" something. Clearly the dude is lying
through his teeth about anything he can. But why
didn't the prosecution point that out? Shouldn't she
have him stand up and show the jury his
BIG ASS TATTOO he just lied about?!!? She
kept trying to get him to admit that he knew what he
was being charged with and he contended he was never
read his rights, never knew anything until he got a
piece of paper to fill out at the station. Doesn't
really matter to me - I still can't get over the fact
that NOTHING ABOUT THE "argument" WAS
BROUGHT UP when the kid was on the stand or the
policeman?!?! Huh? Why can't she call those people
back up?!?! Then the defense rests and the judge says
they'll do closing statements after lunch. HUH? Why is
anyone OK with this? I haven't the slightest idea what
happened now... so inadvertently that means the
prosecution didn't prove the case? Even though I know
this dude is lying? EVEN THOUGH HE SPOKE TO ME DURING
THE TRIAL AND TRIED TO PLEAD HIS CASE? WHAT? LOL. What
kind of goddamn courtroom is this? By law am I
supposed to mention this? I think I have to. What the
fuck do I do? I HAVE TO KNOW HOW THIS SHIT ENDS. LOL.
Can I request a sidebar AFTER the closing statements
at least? Right before we make our assessment? DAMNIT.
If they dismiss me without letting me see the end of
this I'm gonna lose it. LOL. Dahhhhhhhhhhhh. I ate at
a Subway down the street from this
picture...
Hipstamatic pics
look so awesome. That looks like 1955 to me.
Especially with the movie.
After lunch they
say their final arguments and more than anything I'm
just annoyed. We go into deliberations and I just
start talking. I ask if anyone saw him speak to
me, and thankfully 4 people had. Everyone said
I should just shut up about it. I think they
wanted this to be done. LOL. I asked why the hell they
never asked the kid about the argument and everyone
felt like the lawyers were inept. Someone asked if
anyone would volunteer to be the foreman and I raised
my hand. Everyone was happy with that 'cause I was
such a loud mouth already LOL. Our first vote? 6
Guilty, 3 Not Guilty, 3 Unsure. Fuck.
I will admit,
I was in the "unsure" camp because I had to
wade through the mess the attorneys created. So we all
sat around and talked about all the holes in the case
for 90 minutes until we were dismissed. Everyone was
confused, everyone was frustrated and 2 people
honestly couldn't speak english well enough to be on
the case. One guy was certain it wasn't attempted
robbery because he didn't have a gun - so it was only
attempted battery (which I don't believe is even
a crime). When you have that little understanding of
what attempted robbery is - what the hell happens
next? Hopefully we find out tomorrow.
Tuesday, March
6th, 2011
And so we come to
today. Before we went in to the deliberation room,
I ran into Chris Darden from the OJ Case!!
How cool is that? I actually stopped him, shook his
hand, and thanked him for how much of his soul he put
into that case. I felt so bad for him after that. I
really am in an LA Courthouse, huh. This is the
hallway he was in where we were waiting:
Our courthouse
was directly to the right,
off-screen.
So, overnight the
more I thought about it, the more it came clear
what this came down to: You either believe the kid is
telling the truth or you believe the defendant is
telling the truth. Since their stories are so
different it comes down to that. Right away in the
deliberation room I admitted I was now a
"guilty". Because the ONLY reasonable doubt comes from
the testimony of the defendant who was proven to be a
liar. The tattoo thing really got to me. The fact that
he paused on questions that we already knew... the
fact that he tried to paint the kid as "staring him
down" when the kid was half his size... whew. And
also, it was now more than clear why the defense never
asked the kid about the "argument" - it never
happened. It would've killed her case. The defendant
had this long, drawn-out story about him cutting in
line, them exchanging words... the kid told the
prosecution he never even saw the dude... it's just
all a lie. I have no reason not to believe the kid -
so voila: guilty. With no other evidence? And jesus,
why would the kid risk testifying against this dude
otherwise? If there was no attempt at robbery, the
family would've just driven away. This is a
loooooooooooot of work just to lie.
We still had 2
"Unsure" and 2 "Not Guilty" votes and another woman
and I just kept asking them questions and trying to
help them understand. After another hour we were down
to 10-2. The problem though, it came down to the
people that didn't know english very well. One guy was
Asian (he also didn't think attempted robbery was a
crime - therefore he had doubt) and the other guy was
Hispanic. That guy just smiled a lot and said he was
confused. LOL. It was actually kind of funny and
endearing. He was also pretty willing to go whatever
way everyone else did, 'cause he just didn't
understand what the hell was happening. Sad that it
comes down to this, but the defense kept him on the
jury - so it's their fault. We all focused on the
Asian dude (who I'll call Bob) who just couldn't get
his head around the issue of "attempted" robbery. And
honestly? It is kind of a murky "crime". None of
us could believe it went to a jury trial.
We finally just decided to stop talking about the case
for a bit. I got up and walked around. We talked about
other goofy stuff. I actually really liked
everyone in the room. An unbelievable cross-section of
society. Every age group represented, several races,
gender was 7-5 in female. Every walk of life. When do
you get to hang out with people like this?
Then, Bob went to
the bathroom, came back and said to me "OK, he's
guilty." And we all looked around and went - shit,
we're done. I started filling out the paperwork
as the foreman and we rang the little buzzer. Then
I got nervous as balls. Do I have to read
this shit to that gangsta mofo who was trying to talk
to me? I assumed I did, so I read over
the thing "We the jury, in the above...etc" a couple
times. It was lunch time by this point so we figured
that's where we'd be headed, but they had us finish it
right away. They took our verdict, gave it to the
judge and then thankfully, whew, the clerk read it out
and said "Signed by the foreman" and never said my
name. The defendant never BUDGED. I watched him the
entire time, and it was as if he knew the entire time.
I expected some reaction. Nope.
And they dismissed
us and voila we all vanished. We didn't know anyone's
name, we'll never see each other again... crazy huh?
But to tell you the truth? I think there should be
professional jurors. I think the deliberations
should be taped, and we should pick from a large
capable group as opposed to every goddamn citizen.
Some people are cut out for this, and some people are
NOT. I like the "jury of your peers" thing,
but the hispanic dude who was smiling and confused?
That's bullshit. The defendant didn't deserve that.
Then again, we may have been totally wrong in our
verdict - who knows? Everyone felt good leaving the
court house and I have no reasonable doubt that
he went up to that kid to grab his cell phone or
wallet. I grabbed a burger at Grand Central
Market...
...and headed
home. It was nice. Felt like I was a
whard-working downtown husband coming home to see his
pregnant wife. Shit, I just said that didn't I.
Now THIS entry has to be locked? FUCK. I should just
edit that.
No,
I shouldn't. 'Cause I thought about being a
dad the entire goddamn time I was there.
I loved working downtown and coming home to
Talya. It's a life I will probably never have and
honestly there's far more positives to working at
home, but I like playing "every man" every
now and then. Anyway, glad I got picked, glad I'm
a nerd and wrote about it, and I was glad to have
an unlocked entry this month until I gave away
the secret at the end. (sigh) Oh well. Just one more
month.
