![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qosWe got a late start at the courthouse this morning. We thought it was just because one of our jurors missed her bus, but found out later that the translator was also not available earlier. So while most of us showed up at 9am as directed, we didn't get into court until after 11am.
We heard the judge's instructions, listened to summations and the prosecutor's rebuttal, and then retired to our room at a few minutes to twelve. We all agreed to get started on the deliberations before breaking for lunch, and then decided to all grab our meals and bring them back to the room to continue deliberating.
It was an interesting process, and I'm grateful to my fellow jurors for being sincere, committed, and willing to really grapple with the issues. Our big problem was that we felt both attorneys had given us so little to work with.
The case was a DUI. The defendent, Sergei, was a Russian immigrant, who had been in the country for approximately two years at the time of his arrest. The defense did not dispute that the defendent had consumed alcohol that night, or that he had failed all the Field Sobriety Tests. What we were asked to believe, however, was: 1. that the defendent had multiple old injuries which left him with impaired balance, making him unable to 'pass' the tests even though sober, and 2. that his understanding of English was not sufficient to fully understand the state trooper's instructions, or to communication effectively about his medical conditions, even though some conversation was possible.
The defense attorney was good enough to have many of us sincerely doubting whether or not there were good reasons to question the results of the field sobriety tests. The problem was, we all agreed that the lack of actual medical evidence of the defendent's condition called it all into question. Plus, despite the defendent's repeated testimony that he was affected by his condition "all the time" we saw no sign of it. And we all wondered why in the world the prosecutor hadn't called the defense on the lack of corroborating medical testimony.
The state trooper had let slip that a breathalyzer test had been given, but we had been told that the results had been suppressed. (We found out later that that slip might have resulted in a mistrial.) So all we had to go on to decide if the defendent was "appreciably impaired" was the results of the field sobriety tests.
Tom, our foreman, was difficult. He wanted to call all kinds of things into question that neither lawyer had brought into the case: the reliability of the field sobriety test, the conditions under which the defendent had taken them, the possible over-zealousness of the officer, and etc. I got impatient with him, and kept reminding him that while his concerns might be sincere, we could only base our decision on the evidence presented in the court.
Eventually, at my suggestion, we went through our lists of the elements of the four field sobriety tests, and decided for each one whether we believed the defendent's failure was most reasonably explained by medical condition, translation problems, or intoxication. When we got through the list (after much discussion) we had decided that in only one element of one case could we credit that translation issue. And since we didn't think the medical conditions actually existed, that left only intoxication.
In the end, we were all in agreement, although I don't think any of us were happy about it. It's a sobering thing, to declare someone guilty.
Imagine our dismay when, after we had been dismissed, the two attorneys joined us to get feedback and answer questions, and we found out from both of them that it's very difficult to actually get medical testimony into the court record. The attorney can't just present a file. It has to be brought by a doctor or one of his staff, who has to testify that the record is true and accurate. While we spoke blithely of having our own doctors there with us if we were in the situation the defendent was, the attorneys said that most doctors don't like coming to court, because of the amount of time involved, and attorneys are reluctant to sub poena them, because they can end up with a hostile witness.
However, with the permission of the defense attorney, the prosecutor told us that the defendent had failed the breathalyzer test. The test results had been suppressed not because there was a challenge to the specific incident, but because there is a state-wide challenge to breathalyzer tests administered after a particular date. But we felt better to know that our decision was confirmed by the breathalyzer test.
We heard the judge's instructions, listened to summations and the prosecutor's rebuttal, and then retired to our room at a few minutes to twelve. We all agreed to get started on the deliberations before breaking for lunch, and then decided to all grab our meals and bring them back to the room to continue deliberating.
It was an interesting process, and I'm grateful to my fellow jurors for being sincere, committed, and willing to really grapple with the issues. Our big problem was that we felt both attorneys had given us so little to work with.
The case was a DUI. The defendent, Sergei, was a Russian immigrant, who had been in the country for approximately two years at the time of his arrest. The defense did not dispute that the defendent had consumed alcohol that night, or that he had failed all the Field Sobriety Tests. What we were asked to believe, however, was: 1. that the defendent had multiple old injuries which left him with impaired balance, making him unable to 'pass' the tests even though sober, and 2. that his understanding of English was not sufficient to fully understand the state trooper's instructions, or to communication effectively about his medical conditions, even though some conversation was possible.
The defense attorney was good enough to have many of us sincerely doubting whether or not there were good reasons to question the results of the field sobriety tests. The problem was, we all agreed that the lack of actual medical evidence of the defendent's condition called it all into question. Plus, despite the defendent's repeated testimony that he was affected by his condition "all the time" we saw no sign of it. And we all wondered why in the world the prosecutor hadn't called the defense on the lack of corroborating medical testimony.
The state trooper had let slip that a breathalyzer test had been given, but we had been told that the results had been suppressed. (We found out later that that slip might have resulted in a mistrial.) So all we had to go on to decide if the defendent was "appreciably impaired" was the results of the field sobriety tests.
Tom, our foreman, was difficult. He wanted to call all kinds of things into question that neither lawyer had brought into the case: the reliability of the field sobriety test, the conditions under which the defendent had taken them, the possible over-zealousness of the officer, and etc. I got impatient with him, and kept reminding him that while his concerns might be sincere, we could only base our decision on the evidence presented in the court.
Eventually, at my suggestion, we went through our lists of the elements of the four field sobriety tests, and decided for each one whether we believed the defendent's failure was most reasonably explained by medical condition, translation problems, or intoxication. When we got through the list (after much discussion) we had decided that in only one element of one case could we credit that translation issue. And since we didn't think the medical conditions actually existed, that left only intoxication.
In the end, we were all in agreement, although I don't think any of us were happy about it. It's a sobering thing, to declare someone guilty.
Imagine our dismay when, after we had been dismissed, the two attorneys joined us to get feedback and answer questions, and we found out from both of them that it's very difficult to actually get medical testimony into the court record. The attorney can't just present a file. It has to be brought by a doctor or one of his staff, who has to testify that the record is true and accurate. While we spoke blithely of having our own doctors there with us if we were in the situation the defendent was, the attorneys said that most doctors don't like coming to court, because of the amount of time involved, and attorneys are reluctant to sub poena them, because they can end up with a hostile witness.
However, with the permission of the defense attorney, the prosecutor told us that the defendent had failed the breathalyzer test. The test results had been suppressed not because there was a challenge to the specific incident, but because there is a state-wide challenge to breathalyzer tests administered after a particular date. But we felt better to know that our decision was confirmed by the breathalyzer test.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 03:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 03:27 am (UTC)I am not surprised that the medical records were not submitted to the court. Would have been hearsay without the doctor present, or even if you could get them admitted under exclusion. They are not considered best evidence so they are better off not being allowed in the courtroom.
The best evidence was the testimony of the officer. The officer is a professional, and unless misconduct can be implicated his testimony is golden.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 03:39 am (UTC)*still singing "So Long, Farewell" in the back of her head*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-17 03:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 02:54 am (UTC)Sounds like a job well done. You're the best!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 05:00 am (UTC)But when Tom -- in my not-so-humble opinion -- didn't provide actual leadership, I had no qualms about stepping up and firmly stating my case, and presenting a plan for getting us to a decision we could all agree on.
I seldom put myself forward as a leader in a "who wants to volunteer?" situation. I have a fear of failure, and still am too much influenced by early teachings about not being pushy or arrogant. But I abhor a leadership vaccuum, and will almost always step forward to fill one, no matter what the formal situation is, if I feel the official leader is not actually leading.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 05:02 pm (UTC)For instance, I was doing my volunteer hours at the coop the other day. There was another man who was volunteering and we were given the task of stocking dairy in the dairy case and then storing the excess behind the refrigerated shelves.
I finished my share of the stocking and then I went in to see if Jim needed help with storing the excess. He said he didn't. I said, "So I guess I'll go find another job." But the way I said it, I raised the pitch of my voice at the end--almost as if it were a question. Almost as if I were asking Jim permission. Men hardly ever do that. I hate it when I do that.
I'm glad in this situation you were able to put yourself forward as a leader when you had some solutions to contribute to the matter at hand.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-18 06:29 pm (UTC)If the other person wanted the job enough to be assertive about it, my own unwillingness to challenge would have kept me silent. I would have been fine to accept someone else's leadership -- so long as she or he had actually led.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-19 05:01 am (UTC)But I suspect you would not defer so much--just that you might naturally take on that role of assistant. But the queen of swords would naturally know when to step up to the plate. I still think you did well.