Jury Duty again....Drunk Driving...or was it?

[Glengoyne]

This past week, I was summoned in for jury duty again. It seems like not near enough time has passed by since I did a month long stint on jury duty(apparently just over two years ago). In any case, I couldn't live up to my bravado, and simply throw the summons away. I guess I have too much of a law and order streak in me.

So I went, and sat in the jury assembly room. Three court rooms are looking for jurors, and there are over two hundred candidates in the juror assembly room. One of them, according to other would be jurors, is a newborn abandoned in a garbage pile case. This is probably the one projected to last until mid-April. I start working on my ways to be objectionable to both the prosecution and defense.

Luckilly all three rolls are called, and I am left in the jury assembly room with 31 other lucky people. It is after ten thirty, and it looks like all I have to do is sit through finding Neverland before they will excuse us for lunch or more likely for the day. After all, what kind of jury pool can have just 32 people in it? Fifteen minutes later, we are told that we will be sent up to one of the courtrooms.

When we arrive, based on the short witness list, just three names, and the type of witnesses, a deputy, a Highway Patrol officer, and an alcohol analyst, it looks like we will be hearing a very short drunk driving case. It all starts out very well. I'm not selected as one of the initial twelve in the box, which is slightly disappointing. In my opinion, the longer you are exposed to questioning from the attorneys the more likely you are to say something objectionable to one side or the other. In any case I sat through several iterations of the judge asking people questions, and excusing those who had recounted family or friends killed by drunk drivers. Since this would be a two day affair, he wasn't really considering any other claims as a reason for an excuse for cause.

When the attorneys got their crack at the apple, some things became obvious. First if you didn't drink at all for religious reasons...you were excused by the defense. If you had ever challenged a traffic ticket...you were excused by the prosecution. If you thought the City's new drunk driving "sting" program was a good thing, then you were excused by the defense....if you thought it even might not be a good thing..you were excused by the prosecution.

When just a few of us were left in the court room seats, and the lawyers had gone through what seemed to be a helluva lot of challenges, I was called to take a spot in seat number seven. I gave my brief biography, and then was questioned by the prosecution. In response to the question "Have you ever seen someone drunk?", I said yes. The follow up was the odd question "How did you know they were drunk". I responded that "Well for one thing, they had had almost as much to drink as I had." I thought for sure that was going to get me off. Perhaps I softened the stance too much by following up with the fact that I don't drink very much any more, just the occasional scotch or wine at home or with dinner. Of course I also responded that I never drank and drove. Somehow...that didn't get me excused. I identified myself as a social drinker to the defense, but she didn't follow up with me. Somehow, before I thought it was possible, I was sworn in.

[Glengoyne]

In the prosecution's opening statement, it became clear that the defendant wasn't all that good a guy. He got into a drunken fight with his mother, and then went to sit in his jeep in their driveway(he lived at home) and drink the better part of a twelve pack of beer. The prosecution told us we would be presented evidence that the defendant used the said vehicle to threaten approaching peace officers, and then after a struggle with police, had his blood alcohol level tested at nearly three times the legal limit.

The defense however countered that they would essentially stipulate that the defendant was drunk. They wouldn't argue that he wasn't. They would however argue that he wasn't driving. She said there would be no evidence presented to indicate that the wheels on the defendant's vehicle had moved.

Now I didn't know what the law said about such cases, but I had seen an Everybody Loves Raymond where Deb had been arrested for drunk driving because she was drunk and sitting in the car with the keys. In short, I was interested.

[Mustang]

I was part of a jury pool for a drunk driving case where one of the people on the jury was a former police officer that was on disability due to being struck by a drunk driver. How the hell he was never challenged by the defense.. I have no idea.

[Glengoyne]

The arresting deputy testified that as he approached the jeep Cherokee, that he heard the engine start. He saw the reverse lights come on, and the vehicle lurch as if it was placed in gear. At that point he drew his sidearm, and moved laterally so that he wasn't in the vehicle's path. Then he testified that the reverse lights went off, and the engine shut down.

Later in his testimony the prosection asked if the jeep moved, and the deputy said "yes"... "How far?".... "About three feet."

On cross he was questioned about his report. In it he indicated that the vehicle started...that the reverse lights had come on...and that the engine had shut off. He admitted that he hadn't included the fact that the car had moved, nor the fact that he had drawn his gun. He was apparently just providing the CHP the necessary facts to prosecute the guy for DUI. "The defendant had care and control of the vehicle, showed objective signs of drunkeness, and had attempted to move the vehicle."

[st.cronin]

I don't know for sure, but I have heard that you can be charged with drunk driving if you are in the drivers seat, with keys in your possesion, whether the engine is on or not. Doesn't quite seem right to me.

[clintl]

You really aren't supposed to be discussing the case yet, are you?

As for what the law says, I wouldn't be surprised if it's different in different states, and whatever it is, the judge is going to tell you before you start deliberations.

[bosshogg23]

My brother recieved a warning from an officer a few years ago. He was driving home, realized he had too much alcohol to drive and pulled into a parking lot to sleep it off. When he fell asleep he left the keys in the ignition. Woke up to a police officer tapping on his window. The officer questioned him a bit then drove him home with instructions not to return alone to the vehicle for 4 hours(apparently to sober up). That was the end of that, all in all my brother was quite lucky.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by clintl

You really aren't supposed to be discussing the case yet, are you?

As for what the law says, I wouldn't be surprised if it's different in different states, and whatever it is, the judge is going to tell you before you start deliberations.

Actually this is all wrapped up. Started Thursday..and ended Friday. I'm just giving a narration of the experience. I found the distinction interesting.

I would have written more, except the wife has a list of honey dos that need addressing.

I'll be checking in later.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Actually this is all wrapped up. Started Thursday..and ended Friday. I'm just giving a narration of the experience. I found the distinction interesting.

I would have written more, except the wife has a list of honey dos that need addressing.

I'll be checking in later.

I was worried you were putting yourself at jeopardy by discussing the case prematurely. Now, I'm very interested and look forward to reading more in this thread.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Actually this is all wrapped up. Started Thursday..and ended Friday. I'm just giving a narration of the experience. I found the distinction interesting.

I would have written more, except the wife has a list of honey dos that need addressing.

I'll be checking in later.

I'm looking forward to it!

[Terps]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know for sure, but I have heard that you can be charged with drunk driving if you are in the drivers seat, with keys in your possesion, whether the engine is on or not. Doesn't quite seem right to me.

I had this happen to me in January when I got my DUI. I was pulled over sleeping in the drivers seat with the keys in the ignition.

[JeeberD]

You were pulled over while you were sleeping?

[Glengoyne]

The deputy also noted that his account of the incident was from his actual memory of the events. He recalls them clearly and vividly because certain elements of this event are unique in his career.

For one..he drew his sidearm. The second, the reverse lights of a vehicle came on, and the vehicle lurched when he was standing behind it. He was about fifteen feet away when the vehicle started. The moment is crystalized in his mind because he briefly thought his life might be in danger.

Also the prosecution made a big deal about the fact that the defendant was cursing repeatedly. "Fuck You"..."Fuck I'm at my own house...Fuck Off"..."Fuck You" ad nauseam. He was also spitting at the officers, and in the deputy's car. They fitted the defendant with a "spit sock", a mask designed to redirect an individual's spit back onto their own person.

[Terps]

I was pulled to the side of the road, but they pulled me over because I wasn't over the line far enough.

[Glengoyne]

The Highway patrol officer was the next to testify. She interviewed the suspect, until the arresting deputy approached at which time the defendant became uncontrollable once again. He had to be re-restrained, and again fitted with a spit sock. He was so uncontrollable that the officer wasn't able to administer a roadside sobriety test. Later the defendant "blew" a .23 and then a .22 on the breathalyzer device. This wasn't contested by the defense.

The officer also gave a recounting of the deputy's verbal report of the events. She was told that the engine started..the reverse lights had come on...and then that the engine had shut off. She did recall the deputy mentioning that he had drawn his sidearm, and that he had moved so that he wasn't directly behind the jeep. She didn't recall any mention of the vehicle lurching or moving.

[Glengoyne]

The alcohol analyst didn't add much of note. He droned on for quite some time about how the breathalyzer like test worked, and how it correlated to Blood Alcohol tests. Of note, this was the same criminalist who testified in the rape case I served on a couple of years ago. His dissertation on DNA was MUCH more interesting.

Again .23 and then .22. The other interesting tidbits of information he offered; The test units have to be tested every ten days or 150 tests. The test units have to test a control sample to within .01 accuracy. Breath Alcohol levels are slightly lower than the corresponding Blood Alcohol levels.

Edit: Also he did a tricky bit of math when asked how many beers it would have taken to get the defendant as drunk as was indicated. He was given a window of time to assume that the drinking was occuring. His answer 6 and a half beers. Interestingly enough, according to the arresting officer's testimony there was an opened twelve pack sitting on the passenger seat of the vehicle with five beers left unopened and cold to the touch. I thought that was pretty cool.

[Glengoyne]

The defense rested without mounting an "affirmative defense". For some reason I like these courtroom and legal terms. Perhaps it is because they often illustrate a proper use of language.

That being, the case we went right to closing arguments.

For the prosecution. That amounted to recounting the myriad of empty beer cans in the vehicle, the argument with the mother, the cursing, the spitting, the resisting of the officers, and did I mention the spitting. On top of this she threw in that the deputy had given his sworn testimony that the vehicle moved three feet. Oh yeah...and the guy had a breath alcohol level of .23 and then later .22 percent.

For the defense. We were reminded that her client was indeed drunk. She recounted how the deputy hadn't made any record of his assertion that the vehicle had moved until the previous day in court. She reminded us that he had discussed the case with the prosecution prior to his testimony. She mentioned that the deputy very much had a stake in the outcome of this case. Every bit as much as either herself or the prosecuting attorney.

When the prosecution gave their final closing we were remined that the deputy had testified that he was testifying from his personal recollection, and that that recollection was especially detailed and fresh in his mind because of the circumstances of the incident. Furthermore the deputy testified that he had had no prior contact with the defendant, and therefore had no motivation to fabricate or modify his testimony so as to be especially damning for the defendant.

With that, we were sent into the jury room to begin deliberations. I was elected foreman of the jury.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

You were pulled over while you were sleeping?

I have a friend that this happened too and I'd imagine it's more common than you'd think. He was leaving the airport and had fallen asleep in the left turn lane.

The officer was incredibly cool about it. He waited several lights before approaching his car but when my friend couldn't pass the field test he was arrested. My friend had no hard feelings, he had screwed up pretty bad.

Personally, I put far more weight on the roadside test than the blood alcohol test. What I feel comfortable with is signs of impairment not a technicality tested simply because one smelled alcohol . I wonder how others feel about this.

I'd tend to lean toward conviction for a guy who shows impaired but passes the BAT test and would lean toward voting guilty ( it's a law ) but not at all comfortable about it if the driver showed no signs of being impaired.

I wouldn't feel sorry for the driver mind you. It's pretty stupid to try to drive after drinking enough to fail. I'm just not sure the harsh penalty fits the crime in cases where the driver isn't impaired.

[Craptacular]

A local case similar to this was just decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A drunk woman was convicted of DD, after she was found sitting in the driver's seat of a running, but parked car. She had given her keys to a man she was drinking with at a bar, who proceeded to drive her (in her car) and a friend to another parking lot, where he had left his car. The two men got out, the driver helped his buddy into his car, but had left her car running. The woman slid over to the driver's seat to open the door for the guy again to talk. An officer came by, performed a sobriety test, and arrested her. The Supreme Court ended up overturning the conviction because she never operated the vehicle while intoxicated. The court ruled that 'operate' means "the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion".

[Glengoyne]

The judge's instructions in this case included the laws and the applicable definitions.

Both counts required either alcohol at a certain level or just the presense of alcohol in a breath test...since the evidence on this was pretty clear...that was easy to dispense with.

Both counts also required the individual to "drive" a motor vehicle.

Drive was defined as controlling the vehicle while it was moving. The vehicle must move, but the movement may be slight.

[Glengoyne]

I asked for opinions around the table before taking a ballot. I also reminded everyone to not take too strong a position at the outset, because that alone might be enough to prevent them from being persuaded when they otherwise might be.

The concensus seemed to be that it all came down to whether or not the vehicle moved or not. For some people that wasn't even a question. The deputy, after all, did testify that the vehicle had moved three feet. Others had their doubts about whether or not the vehicle had moved.

It seemed, to me, to be about a 50/50 split based on comments. Lunch was approaching so I asked for a ballot. It came back 8 to 4 guilty.

I asked that everyone remember that we are essentially voting to determine whether the prosecution's evidence proved that the car moved beyond a reasonable doubt, and asked them to honestly consider the "other side" of the the question while at lunch.

[JeeberD]

Damn...this is making me want to watch 12 Angry Men again...

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm not sure if you want opinions or not, but I've formulated my verdict based on the facts in evidence

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I'm not sure if you want opinions or not, but I've formulated my verdict based on the facts in evidence

Oh no opinions are welcome. I'm sorry to say I won't be able to continue until later tonight.

I will add that some of the opinions stated to this point were. "It sounds like the deputy realized that if he wanted this charge to stick, he'd have to, we'll say, imbellish his account" as well as "Well if you shift a car into gear it moves. Period. I just don't see anyone convincing me otherwise." Not to mention "Well if the deputy knew the car had to move in order for it to be a DUI, then why would he have called in the CHP to process the guy for a DUI, if the car really hadn't moved?"

[Eaglesfan27]

Based on the facts that we have so far, I'd vote "Not Guilty." The fact that the deputy didn't include the car moving in his initial report, and the Highway Patrol officer not mentioning the car moving in her testimony both conspire to create reasonable doubt in my mind.

[DaddyTorgo]

right. reasonable doubt is what it's all about in this case

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Based on the facts that we have so far, I'd vote "Not Guilty." The fact that the deputy didn't include the car moving in his initial report, and the Highway Patrol officer not mentioning the car moving in her testimony both conspire to create reasonable doubt in my mind.

We were on the same page. The problem was, at the first ballot, I was on the short end of an eight to four vote. I honestly may have slanted the facts that I've presented so far, because they are the facts that I used to arrive at my decision.

When we returned from lunch, one of the ladies, dead set on sending the guy up river, cleared a spot on the table and made a big show of laying magazines out end to end. "One...Two.....Three...Four... He said the car moved three or four feet"... "That is movement, and look at it, you can't even call that slight." I mentioned that were a car to move that far, that I wouldn't describe it as a car "lurching, like when it is put in gear". If a car moves that far it is "backing up". The deputy never said that. He repeatedly said lurching or jumping, and compared the motion to that common when a car is put into gear.

In response to this...there was still the "If you put a car in gear it moves." and "if the car didn't move, then why did the deputy report it as a DUI?" Another argument reared its head at this point to. "Maybe the deputy just forgot to put that in his report." "We can't let the guy off just because the deputy made a mistake."

As the various arguments made their way aruond the table, I took some time to gather my thoughts as to why I had doubts.
-No mention of the car moving in the report.
-No mention of the car moving, but did include engine on...reverse lights...engine off...and the drawn sidearm in the verbal account given to the CHP officer.
-inconsistencies in the deputy's testimony. Always jump or lurch...never moved or backed up.
-Also I don't believe that the deputy knew the requirements for a DUI. He repeatedly mentioned that care and control of the vehicle along with objective signs of drunkeness were all that were required.
-Lastly I don't believe that the movement from dropping a car into gear constitutes driving as is described in the statute. Not even "slight movement". I know that if I were in the defendants shoes, I'd like to be given at least that much benefit of the doubt.

I shared those thoughts...let people respond to my position, listening to their counters or wholly new arguements. Then we called for another ballot.

This ballot came in dead even. Six to six.

[MrBug708]

Friend once told me if you ever crash your car when drunk, throw your keys as far as you can in an area that would be hard to find. Cops will inevitably show up, but wont be able to prove you were driving

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Friend once told me if you ever crash your car when drunk, throw your keys as far as you can in an area that would be hard to find. Cops will inevitably show up, but wont be able to prove you were driving

Better idea: don't drive while drunk.

The cops won't try to arrest you, and you won't lose a perfectly good set of keys.

[Glengoyne]

One of the "guilty" voters was actually pissed that people had changed their minds. He wanted to the two vote changers to speak up, and describe why they had changed their votes. One of the converts did. Mentioning that he now felt that he had some doubts as to whether or not the car moved. He added "Now I aint one to change my mind on a whim, but there were some persuasive arguements being made, and this case could honestly go either way in my mind."

Many more arguments now hit the table again. This time there were lots of departures from the case. "Why did the mother call the police, and tell them he was drunk and sitting in his car? Maybe she was scared of him. Maybe she was afraid he was going to hurt her. Maybe she knew he was going to drive drunk, or had been." "The deptuy's job is on the line here. Maybe he's a screwup, and that's why he's trying to make this case stick. He did draw his gun and fail to report it" There were lots of others, and it was not easy to keep people on task as it were.

One argument of note, a corrections officer, on the jury defeded the deputy pretty steadfastly, saying essentially that he had written many reports, and had at times forgotten to list key details in his reports. I countered that this wasn't just a detail, or even just a key detail. It was like writing a report describing a burglary, and leaving out the burglary.

After some time and some more useless debate, I asked if it would be helpful to have the deputy's testimony read back to us. Lots of people felt that was a good idea, so I requested it on the Juror Question form the court had provided. I wanted the testimony read back because I had noted in my trial notes the phrase "Attempted to move the vehicle" written in a such a way that I believed I had directly quoted the deputy. I knew I couldn't shouldn't mention it to the rest of the jurors, because I didn't recall him making the statement, only just that I had written down as a direct quote.

It was about two thirds of the way through his testimony when the phrase came up. I looked around, and noted that about half of the table had quit listening some time ago. So I asked the court reporter to back up a couple of questions. This time around, I say eyes perk up and people grabbing pens. Also, another juror asked the reporter to go back and read it again...the third time through I saw his light-bulb go off as well. We continued to listen to the deputy's testimony, skipping the spitting and cursing parts. Well we did make the cute, petite, actually strangely alluring court reporter say "fuck" a few times. We went pretty much all the way through the direct, cross, and redirect testimony. That gave us several more opportunities for the deputy to describe the encounter in the driveway.

It was at this point that everyone seemed to have come to the conclusion that the deputy's account of the vehicle moving was questionable, and people noted all kinds of short comings with his testimony.

We took another ballot at this time.

It came back eleven to one.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Better idea: don't drive while drunk.

The cops won't try to arrest you, and you won't lose a perfectly good set of keys.

I dont make it a habit.

[Barkeep49]

This has been very interesting reading.

[kcchief19]

Argh! I need closure!

[clintl]

Based on what I've read here, I'm surprised the DA decided to pursue the case in the first place.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by clintl

Based on what I've read here, I'm surprised the DA decided to pursue the case in the first place.

I am too. It does make you wonder if there is some type of extenuating circumstance, such as that this guy is a trouble maker and has slipped out of other charges. I just feel like there is something we don't know or something we are missing that this case went to trial and didn't get pleaded down or dropped.

You obviously can't consider that as part of the jury, so based on what I've read here, I'd have to vote not guilty too.

[Glengoyne]

With the ballot coming back eleven to one Not Guilty, I figured that one of the two women who had been most outspoken against the defendant had decided not to back down from her position. Instead...the one I figured for the stiffened spine was sort of ticked that someone still didn't see it the same as everyone else. I said I didn't want to necessarilly single someone out, but felt that we needed to have an open discussion. So I asked one of the ohter jurors to make the case for Not Guilty once again, and then invited anyone to speak up against it. No one did. We were left with silence. I decided that perhaps someone had made a mistake.

So I called for another ballot.

It came back eleven to one for Not Guilty.

[DaddyTorgo]

CLOSURE!!! I NEED CLOSURE!!! what happened next?!!? Man...this is intense!

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

With the ballot coming back eleven to one Not Guilty, I figured that one of the two women who had been most outspoken against the defendant had decided not to back down from her position. Instead...the one I figured for the stiffened spine was sort of ticked that someone still didn't see it the same as everyone else. I said I didn't want to necessarilly single someone out, but felt that we needed to have an open discussion. So I asked one of the ohter jurors to make the case for Not Guilty once again, and then invited anyone to speak up against it. No one did. We were left with silence. I decided that perhaps someone had made a mistake.

So I called for another ballot.

It came back eleven to one for Not Guilty.

Haha it sounds like that person thinks it's a game to see how long it takes everyone to figure out who they are.

That, or they wanted the $16 for the extra day of jury duty...

[Glengoyne]

At this point I was pretty much out of nuanced ways to coax the dissenter out. I said allright, honestly now it doesn't appear that this was a mistake. One of us has an opinion, but for some reason isn't willing to make an account of it. You are putting the rest of us in a difficult situation. We can't hope to convince you of our position, and you certainly can't hope to convince us of your's if you don't state it.

Silence.

The idea of a visual vote came up, but I didn't know if that would present a problem. Especially if that vote came back unanimous. I tossed the "guilty" ballot out onto the table in front of me, and suggested that we ask the judge if it is acceptable to use a visual ballot, and explain the situation.

One of the ladies near my end of the table said "Hey let me look at that handwriting." I joked that she was going to try her hand at handwriting analysis. She then blushed, and asked what everyone else was voting. When the reply came back "not guilty"...she said "Ooops I voted wrong. that's my writing."

Once again we took a vote, and the would be hold out had her neighbors check her ballot before sending it in. This time we had a unanimous twelve Not Guilty votes.

All I had to do at this point was to take an individual ballot, this time by raising of hands, for each of the two counts, and then to fill out and sign the paperwork for the clerk.

When we went into the courtroom, I just had to present the paperwork to the deputy who took it to the clerk for the reading of the verdict. The courtroom was now full of deputies. There were three around the defendant. One at the left of the defense table, one to the right, and another deputy about five steps behind the defendant. There were also deputies at each of the three doors into the courtroom.

The clerk then read the verdict, which surprisingly brought no response from the defendant at all. The judge then invited the jury to remain in the jury room for a few minutes, for the attorneys to visit briefly with us.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Haha it sounds like that person thinks it's a game to see how long it takes everyone to figure out who they are.

That, or they wanted the $16 for the extra day of jury duty...

It might have been Homer Simpson wanting to be sequestered.

[Glengoyne]

The attorneys came in, and thanked us again. Then they wanted to know how we arrived at our decision. Several people explained that it came down to the inconsistency of the deputy's testimony. The Prosecutor made it clear to us that she hadn't coached him in his testimony in any way. She said "he assured me that he was testifying from his own recollections." She also said that she asked him repeatedly if the car had moved, and he said "yes". She said that if he hadn't been so adamant that she would have dropped the case. The Public Defender asked if we felt he was lying or if he had just screwed up his report. I assured her that both points of view were expressed during deliberations.

I also asked how often this question of "did the car move?" comes up. The two of them laughed. The Prosecutor said. "really...Did the car move while on private property? Was the car driven? Yeah ...This never happens." She said she was really concerned with someone making a big deal out of the fact that he was in his driveway. I said that I was sort of surprised that issue didn't come up during the trial. She assured me that it had...apparently out of earshot of us jurors.

So that's it. My second tour of duty as jury foreman in two years. This time was MUCH better than the last. Then, I had to report a juror's misconduct, and they got booted from the jury. So, in short, two day trials are much better than month long trials.

[flere-imsaho]

Best thread of the month, easily. Thanks!!!

[RPI-Fan]

What'd the person do last time, where you kicked him off?

[Coffee Warlord]

Heh, they didn't ask us to stay when we sent a guy up for 4 counts of felony firearms possession/theft. Said thanks and goodbye.

Foreman CW got us a guilty verdict in 90 minutes. Which was even more amusing, as I was the only guy not "dressed up". Shorts and t-shirt, bucko.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Best thread of the month, easily. Thanks!!!

No disrespect intended for Glen, as I enjoyed this thread...but you must've missed this beauty :

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=47892

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

What'd the person do last time, where you kicked him off?

On the third day of deliberations a woman came to me and started to tell me how she had been doing some research in some of her daughter's medical manuals, and how her daughter, a nurse, said that the medications the victim was taking...yada yada.

I FREAKING BLEW A FUSE in the jury room. I really don't get pissed off very often, but she set me off. I might have even made her cry...I can't remember...although that really ought to be a satisfying memory. It may have been the judge that made her cry.

It was a clear violation of the judge's orders. I had to go into the courtroom by myself with the judge and attorneys to answer questions about what had happened. They wanted specifics, and lots of them. Months later, this became the grounds for an appeal, which sucked up even more of my time. The most satisfying thing about the whole affair was having a deputy bring her into the jury room to get her possessions, and then escorted her from the building. The bad thing was that we were in the third day of deliberations, and we had to start from scratch with one of the alternates.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Best thread of the month, easily. Thanks!!!

High Praise indeed. Thank You.

I do think Logan has a point though.

[flere-imsaho]

Ah, good points. The Krispy Kreme Burger thread really was classic. This one's up there, though.

[Crapshoot]

Nice reading Glen - going to take over Mr Grisham's niche ?

[Radii]

This was an incredibly interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to post all of it.