Jury Duty Experiences

pumpkin65
Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:58:06 +0000

I’ve been called once…around 13-14 years ago, and it was fascinating and I would like to do it again. It was murder trial - but for some reason, the murder had occurred at least 15 years before the trial. The jury was in the dark about why that was the case - it was clear to us that there had been another trial, because it was referred to from time to time during the 5 days we heard testimony.

I thought for certain I wouldn’t be chosen as I am closely related to a police officer in the county where the murder occurred, and police testimony was central in the case. I was asked whether I could be objective, and I said yes, I thought I could. So, they chose me anyway. (I had heard that being related to a police officer was a sure fire way NOT to be chosen…clearly NOT TRUE) I was also asked if I had seen any articles about the murder, which I hadn’t because I was youngish when it occurred, probably in college without access to my local paper. I was also asked if I had seen the television program that it had apparently been on (America’s Most Wanted…I can’t remember). Living under a rock in those days, little access to TV, I had not seen it.

So, the perp was up for first degree murder. There was not a shred of physical evidence - only circumstantial. Lots of circumstantial evidence given by the family of the perp (father on trial for murdering mother), and strong motive, long background of spousal abuse admitted as evidence. No murder weapon…nothing.

The jury bonded over daily lunches…what was quite peculiar was the most of the jury knew one or two members in mysterious ways - and we live in a large metropolitan area. Many of us were connected - long time next door neighbors, co-workers in the same division at large local employer, teacher/student relationships, high school acquaintances, spouses knowing one another through work, spouses knowing one another through school, one of the jurors knew my parents, one knew my tentants well. This is a randomly selected group, mind you. Very, very weird.

So, at the end of the week, we met to carefully review and consider the evidence. We were instructed by the judge very clearly that circumstantial evidence bears the same weight as direct evidence. Therefore, we convicted him of 1st degree murder.

The judge came in and thanked us when we were finished…he said this was an appeal, the guy had been convicted of 1st degree murder many years before, but some of the evidence had been thrown out for this case. Obviously, we arrived at the same conclusion.

What was really, really weird was that while the case was pending this re-trial, this first degree murderer was free on bail, remarried, and used up all the insurance money. Whichever judge heard the request for a retrial, or whatever, threw out the first trial and allowed this guy out on bail. (which the original judge said he would have never let happen…the original judge on the first trial was the judge for the trial I heard) The judge went so far as to say that the insurance money ‘went up the guy’s nose’ and that he was a scumbag and we did the right thing.

Any of you legal eagles with any insight here…speak up. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that people convicted of 1st degree murder get out on bail pending the next trial that occurs 15 years later?