12 Angry Monkeys

So after a mere 11 weeks of enduring Jury selections, trial and two weeks of deliberations it's over and I am allowed to talk about it.

The story as presented by both sides:

Incident begins harmlessly enough in the parking lot outside a club. Some folks in a Suburban report they have a minor altercation with a guy in an XTerra. They bump his car with their door. He says "Hey man, watch my car", they reply with "Sorry man, but this is a rental and I don't give a shit." The folks in the Suburban think nothing more of this as they leave the club,
travel along city streets and eventually get on the freeway.

They are traveling along and as they near the point where the freeway divides into 101 and 280 they hear a loud bump / thud to the rear, right side of their car.

They all look around and wonder "did we run over a brick?"

At that point they see an XTerra next to them, and then someone shouts "They're shooting at us!"

Conflicting reports from different witnesses. Some folks report hearing multiple bangs, some just see flashes, the front passenger window shatters.

The front passenger remembers shouting at the driver warning him they are about to hit the retaining wall (which they do), he eventually grabs the wheel and wrestles the car to a stop (the tires on one side have gone flat, so the car slows down fast)

End result: The driver is dead. They dial 911 and help arrives in minutes. Hope to Cod you never have to hear the 911 tape of someone who's best friend has just been shot.

Further testimony emerges: Initially they made statements to the police (hearsay) they saw shots from the driver's window. By the time the grand jury testimony rolls around they are testifying that they saw the shots come from the back driver's side window.

(4 people, with slightly different testimony. But they more or less tell the same general story)

Next up is testimony from the SF CSI, who arrived on the scene about 40 minutes after the incident. If nothing else, he provides much needed relief in his own dry, Irish-accented style.

PD: "So have you ever seen the show CSI?"
CSI: "No. I work the 9PM to 6AM shift, so I don't watch much prime-time TV."
PD: "Well, you have seen police dramas. How does what you do differ from
what the jury may have seen on TV?"
CSI: "Well, first off, as you can see I'm not wearing a $2000 Armani suit...."

He testifies that in scouring the scene with all the officers they found the following:

• Several bullet fragments (some lead, along with a copper bullet jacket.)
• 3 Spent 9mm shells scattered along the split in the freeway where the XTerra went.
• 2 Spent .44 Special shells along where the split in the freeway near where the Suburban ended up.

He also testifies to later on in the evening performing a gun shot residue collection from several individuals who were arrested driving an Xterra matching the description from the scene. He also gives testimony that the shot that hit the back of the car was a direct shot (not a ricochet) and the cars would have been around 30 feet apart when the shot occurred.

Next up is a beat cop who testifies to the 'felony stop' of one XTerra on the bay bridge (I.e. Guns drawn, exit one at a time, grab some pavement, etc.) He also testifies to one 9mm shell found on the floor of the XTerra (later testimony confirms the markings on this shell as matching those found at the crime scene)

Also up is the ME, who testifies as to cause of death of the driver and collection of gun shot residue samples from the decedent (standard operating procedure for gun-related deaths)

Next up is testimony of the driver of the Xterra. He's made a deal with the DA (he was on trial with the defendant) and he testifies that basically he wanted to get the guys in the car, but the defendant did the shooting. And it was the defendant's gun. And I didn't do nothing.

Not the world's best witness.

Next up is the investigating officer. He plays a videotape of the defendant in the box. Over the course of an hour and half he's asked if this was self-defense (no) he's asked if he did it (no) but eventually he cracks after they tell him they have evidence pointing to someone in the car shooting. He admits to firing two shots "for fun" at "some poles" and claims he didn't know he hit anybody.

During all this we also hear cross examinations where some folks in the car admit they have some prior convictions for road racing, and that one guy in the car has a prior conviction for beating a guy up. The driver also admits he was looking at 2 consecutive life sentences but instead he's getting 5 years for aiding and abetting.

Prosecution rests.

Defense then brings up experts that mention that everyone in the suburban had their clothes tested positive for lead residue. And a few folks had evidence of primer residue on their clothing (expert says 50 / 50 chance someone in the suburban shot vs. residue from the bullet entering the car.)

Experts mention the 2 .44 shell casings.

The defendant then gets up and tells his story. He was just riding in the car (drunk) and heard two loud bangs. The driver shouts at him "they are shooting at us! Shoot them back." and hands him a gun. He says he never sees a gun in the other car but he shoots twice out the back window at the ground just "to show them we have a gun too" and then the driver takes the gun from
him and does the killing shot.

Folks testify that the defendant is a saint.

Folks testify that the driver is a meth addict and has pointed guns at folks
before.

Folks testify that first bullet entering car was ricochet, supporting the cars being closer together.

Experts try and reconstruct the scene. Show how some shots could have happened far down the freeway, with more shots up close to split point where the fatal shooting happened (provided you believe ricochet theory.)

A ton of alternate scenarios are provided (Road race gone bad, supported by prior conviction of driver of Suburban. One other folk in the car had prior convictions for violent offenses. ) Etc. etc. ad nausea.

Prosecution brings back CSI: He says ricochet is BS, explains why. Shoots holes (no pun intended) in defense theory of shots fired, gun handed off, then more shots.

Defense spends a day and a half of closing arguments listing over 100 reasonable doubts.

Prosecution spends considerably less time saying "Don't let the defense confuse you. Sometimes the defendant is just guilty."

We begin deliberations. Oddly enough I have no opinion as to whether the defendant is guilty or not. I go to the bathroom to take a much needed leak and when I return to the jury room everyone is staring at me.

"What?"

"John. We want you to be our foreman."

After a bit of 'aw shucks, I was thinking of running but didn't want the extra stress, but you have faith in me so I'll do my best' I take the job.

We break for the day. And I actually start thinking about guilt or innocence in the case.

We return the next day for deliberations, and I suggest we go over the jury instructions pertaining to evidence and facts. It emerges that one of the jurors:
a) IS a loud mouth
b) loves to interrupt
c) Tends to get upset whenever anything is brought up that suggested the defendant might be guilty.

I rise to the bait somewhat and play devils advocate just to balance things out. I'm not comfortable going either way at this point. This makes the juror more upset (and we haven't even taken a vote yet.)

I notice this juror (and a few others) tends to jump all over the place in terms of testimony. I try drawing a 'fact tree' to keep focused on what's relevant to any given count we're talking about. This doesn't go well (loudmouth gets upset)

We adjourn for the day.

Next day I institute a 'raise your hand to speak rule.' This upsets loudmouth, and in a huff they begin reading paper and not listening. Peer pressure from everyone else that this is a good idea brings this person back into the conversation.

More deliberation, fewer nasty arguments. I point out that I'm only shilling for the prosecution because I feel they are otherwise being shouted down by a small, vocal minority (aka Loudmouth)

Very little progress is made, but slowly different folks find their voice and so both sides of the argument are having productive discussions. Except for loudmouth who gets more upset the closer we come to guilty on anything.

I sleep on it and am starting to lean towards guilt. I realize that while we have evidence to gunshots from the victims' car, the only evidence to corroborate it is the defendant. Everyone else (including his own statement to the police and his accomplice and the folks in the Suburban) all points to no shots from the car. Further, I believe most of these folks a hell of a lot more than a 50/50 chance and his testimony. The more I pick apart all the defense experts, the more holes I find.

Next day we argue endlessly on the count of shooting at an occupied vehicle.

I realize about 1/2 the folks are willing to completely believe the defendant's testimony without a single grain of salt.

Skip ahead to two days later. Following the jury instructions I've basically shown that the defendant's own testimony says he fired a gun. That this is assault unless it's self defense. His own testimony that he never saw a gun and wasn't all that afraid show that self defense isn't an option for him.

We find him guilty of 4 counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm.
(only 7 more counts to go)

2 days of deliberations later (and numerous votes) we seem to be stuck. I point out that we're basically down to weighing his testimony and the 50/50 evidence of a gun in the other car against every single other person in this case. I point out how ridiculous all the 100+ theories the defense has put up don't apply (Since when does a car road race let you shoot someone?
Here's why all 4 shots came in close succession without a hand-off in between.)

Loudmouth throws a tantrum (again) and says they won't find him guilty, not now not ever. We get called into the courtroom (I mention in note to judge that while we are getting stuck, we are not completely stuck, and we have reached a verdict on some counts)

The guilty verdict is entered on the 4 assault counts we found, we return to deliberating.

We agree, loudmouth notwithstanding, to keep trying. We actually find him not guilty of First Degree murder (despite the fact that I think he did it, I simply can't find the evidence to prove premeditation on his behalf, at least according to our 100+ pages of Jury instructions.)

We keep trying to make progress, but we're stuck at 7 to 5 guilty / not guilty on the remaining charges (Shooting at an occupied vehicle, 4 counts attempted murder, murder in various degrees)

Loudmouth is now spending all their time knitting, and not even listening (even during an impassioned speech by me in how none of us has to bear this burden alone, that we have 11 other people here to keep us honest.)

We unanimously declare ourselves to be a hung jury and send a note to that effect to the judge.

30 minutes later we file in to a packed courtroom where our final verdict is entered. The Judge asks me as to what the vote count stands at (without revealing what side it goes for.) how many times it was polled and how long it has remained thus. She also asks every juror if they feel they are unable to make progress. We all answer yes.

With that we are thanked for our time and efforts other the last 11 weeks.

After everyone shuffles out, the attorneys descend on us and we give them our honest feedback. The DA says he's going to reprosecute on all the counts we couldn't find. The defense attorney asks if we have any questions and I ask for his number in case I ever get arrested.

I have this lingering doubt as to whether I did the right thing pushing and working so hard for at least some sort of conviction. But again, I realize that rather than being swayed by the defendant's testimony and the fact that he seemed like just a poor kid, stuck in abad situation, pushed into doing the crime by a really bad guy, I weighed the evidence honestly and found that his didn't measure up to everyone else's.

Outside, I shake the victim's father's hand and tell him I'm sorry for his loss. I chat with him for a bit and the DA comes up and asks if I have any additional feedback. I mention how sympathetic the defendant seemed and how much of a scumbag the driver of the car seemed.

He then proceeds to rattle off all the evidence that was suppressed in this case (recent knife fight
the defendant was in, criminal past, violent history) that basically point out that he was hardly the hapless, poor kid I saw in court.

So the end result after 11 weeks of hard work is that he'll get tried again on a bunch of counts and I can sleep at night knowing all the hard work I put in for those assault counts will at least put him in jail for 12-24 years.

In then end it was well worth sitting through 10 weeks of testimony and the two weeks of sleepless nights and long days of deliberation, playing peacekeeper with a loudmouth juror with a closed mind who showed nothing but disrespect for me and my fellow jurors.

Plus I've given my number to the prosecutor. I volunteered to help him on the retrial vis-a-vis what happened during deliberations.

Now if I could just remember what my life was like before this...