I couldn’t make myself look at the defendant when the verdict was read. It felt so unreal, or surreal, actually… like I was in a movie or play. I had to constantly remind myself that this was real, it was happening, it was serious and the man we’d found guilty would be going to prison for some unspecified amount of time.
One of my fellow jurors later told me that the defendant didn’t flinch. Not a blink, not a twitch. By all accounts, he was a pretty tough guy, but still—I expected him to make some kind of response. This was a serious charge. We were saying we agreed with the People, the State of California, that this man had willfully, with intent, assaulted a man with a deadly weapon and had done great bodily harm to that victim; worse, we were saying he tried to kill the victim.
What constitutes attempted murder? Despite all the testimony about arguments, motive, possible premeditation, blood on the ground, drug abuse, vehicles and pregnant girlfriends, the only real question was whether or not this perpetrator had meant to kill the victim. The defendant saw and pursued the victim on the street, detained him, and despite the victim’s denial of any past wrongdoing against the defendant, the latter stabbed the victim no less than four times in the neck and left side beneath his arm. The victim had potentially mortal wounds. The defendant fled.
The defense claimed it was merely “ADW” – Assault with a deadly weapon. As a jury, we discussed what alternate “assault” methods were available to the defendant that would not have resulted in such life-threatening physical damage. Also, when one stabs another person, is there a point where the attacker can stop and say, “okay, I’m only assaulting, I don’t want to kill him, so I won’t push this knife another quarter or eighth inch.” I don’t think so.
Because the prosecutor brought only the one charge of attempted murder, the defendant would have walked free had we not found him guilty. There is no chance for a subsequent, lesser charge due to law of double jeopardy. Yet we were told not to consider this fact. Told not to consider that he did not take the stand in his own defense; that his counsel did not produce any witnesses or any case at all, for that matter. What she did do was remind us repeatedly that it was entirely the prosecution’s responsibility to prove guilt, which is, of course true. Innocent until proven guilty. Yet I can’t help but think that had there been anything to help her defense, she would have presented it.
Judge Feldstern thanked us profusely for our service. He acknowledged the sacrifices and hardship the service placed on some of us. I was surprised and impressed with his obvious gratitude, but felt awkward that he was happily bestowing whilst the defendant had to be reeling from the verdict right in front of the bench.
After all was said and done, we jurors—some of us, to be sure—were reluctant to leave. We’d shared some very important hours, made extremely weighty and serious decisions. In what now seems like the short span of seven days, we’d unwittingly formed bonds it can take others years to discover. So to Jesse, Roy, Isabel and Tina, I wish we’d met under other circumstances, but acting as responsible, civic-minded Americans together wasn’t half-bad.
Now that it’s been over for a week, I can reflect on the entire experience, and I ponder my earlier annoyance, anger and fear. I wonder how many others share these emotions when summoned to the court. How might these negative reactions be avoided by others in the future?
To be continued…