Jury Duty

On Monday I was selected for Jury duty and participated as a juror in a two day trial, which ended today, Wednesday. I have a lot to say about it but I am still processing it. So I won't be sharing it just yet even though I am allowed to talk about it now. The truth is my conscious is bothering me. I set a man free who I believe to be guilty. At the same time I suppose would be bothered if the opposite was true.

Mostly it has highlighted the many problems with our entire system (not just the court system) as a whole. And the solution is actually something I would go back to from my College days when I studied criminal justice and took a class, "When Cultures Clash" which dealt with the intersection of Native American and Anglo law.

Not to say that all the tribes laws were the same or that they didn't also have to adapt to modern times. But the principal of finding a solution that mends the community makes more sense than over punishing or simply letting someone go free even when faced with a massive amount of evidence indicating guilt... but not going beyond a "reasonable" doubt.


Although jurists are not supposed to consider sentencing in that instance at all, the truth is that it was definitely a factor in the case even making it to trial in the first place.

We pride ourselves in having roots in the common law of Middle Aged England, and having updated our laws in the 80's before the internet was as developed as it now is. I suppose we can consider it a part of our history and culture.

But what I learned mostly is... never assume you have no chance, because I would have assumed this guy had no chance and in the end I voted Not Guilty, against my conscience. I can only hope that he does not go out and resume crime... and that he especially doesn't do so in Chinatown, which is not where the crime was committed but where he was picked up. And that he does not rob anyone Chinese indeed the person who was robbed or who had an incident happen to was not Chinese but was also a small business owner who had troubles with the English Language. The case became about putting HIM on trial.


I learned that truly there is nothing in our laws and court systems to prevent one from going around robbing people so long as those people are of a certain type. They must have problems with English, and they must be foreign. This is a rule that I have known since childhood, as my father and all of his friends were constantly robbed every time they visited us in the high rises in Castle Square.

I learned that the City has changed because in the past these cases would not even go to court.

I learned that the city has changed because its residents no longer all know the tricks of the trade of robbery. How to discard a knife, how to walk calmly after running briefly when encountering people, or how to size someone up in a glance and know how they would move and thus be able to identify them from a distance or on camera by those movements.


I suppose these are good things.


And indeed whoever did the robbing, showed restraint, as he did not kill the old man, as many many Chinese have been killed while being robbed in Chinatown and again whose cases never went to court.


Unless of course the cutting of pants was meant to be the old robbers trick of stabbing one in the inner thigh, which has major arteries but also in a court of law is difficult to prove intent to murder.

The worse Karma would be if I were robbed and stabbed by this man I had set free, but I was against 11 other jurors. And indeed I had doubts because the prosecution failed to show certain evidence that they had lost or simply forgotten to provide through proper questioning. (given the nature of the case, I would assume this was for practice and the ADAs were most likely extremely green.)

  The best case scenario is that the man has learned his lesson with this close shave with jail, and will instead.

I also learned that though I said that having worked for the DA's office I could still be impartial, if I was  defense attorney I would NEVER allow someone from the DA's office on the jury. It is not that that work clouds ones judgement. The problem is that between that, and my experience growing up in the projects and doing Crime Watch in Chinatown and teaching Kung Fu in the inner city where I make contacts with many people on both sides of the law, that I am able to see through bullshit.

But the defense still won.

My logic is that to call my doubts unreasonable while 11 others seem to think the doubts were reasonable is to say that 11 other seemingly reasonable people were anything but. I find more and more that my perspective is in the minority. I was surprised because I was sure I was going to be the only juror who had doubts at all...


Mostly I realize that it is really not the law that governs what people do. If one were to take a knife and rob people who did not have a strong command over the English language, one can do so with impunity. You will not get caught, and if you do, you will not get convicted, no matter what type of evidence there is.

There is also simply no point in even bothering to call the police unless someone dies.

The most well meaning police really can do nothing to help you. They cannot prevent the crime, and upon catching the perpetrators, they will b unable to prove anything or the prosecutors will inevitably mess up a little which to jurors used to television will seem so incredibly unprofessional that they will acquit.

And yes I was part of that today even though I know better.

But sure I was relying on the testimony of the victim. And my doubts.... expanded to be just reasonable enough when seeing that eleven other jurors seemed to be so filled with doubt.

I think it will be difficult to sleep tonight, in fact I see that I have already been writing into the next morning.

I hope this guy takes his second chance and use it for good. That is the only thing that will enable me to sleep.