A fly on the wall. That's all I wanted to be from the start. I was amazed that one lawyer allowed me to be a member of the jury, let alone two. I will never permit a lawyer on any jury in front of which I try a case. I explained that to the fellow members of my jury when they, sensibly, tried to make me foreman.
"There is a reason you don't want a lawyer on a jury. Whenever any legal issue comes up, or many issues related to the proceedings, people are likely to give deference to the opinion of a lawyer. They're more likely to be swayed. That's even more the case when you make the lawyer the foreman. He's likely to control the deliberations. It increases the risk that, instead of having twelve people combining their judgment and wisdom, you'll wind up with only one. I'd rather stay in the background and just give my input like everyone else."
"Come on, Jack. Do you think we're such sheep that we'll do whatever you say?" Sarah Reynolds, 38, teacher, housewife with two daughters. "We all have our own lives, make our own decisions. We're not going to be bulldozed."
"That's not what I said. I wouldn't want a doctor on my jury in a medical case. There are things he knows that the rest of the jury doesn't. They'll assume that if he understands something in a particular way, he's probably right, certainly more likely to be right than they are. I have full confidence in this jury. That's why I don't want to do anything that could remotely taint our decisions."
I think I allayed their concerns about my motives. We elected Vince DeMeo foreman. Vince was a pharmacist. I wouldn't have wanted him on a jury in a case rooted in drug reactions, but we were going to be deciding about attempted murder and, as far as I knew, he had no personal experience.
This was what I wanted: to see and understand the processes by which juries came to decisions so I could use that knowledge in the future when I was in front of a jury. Bless those two foolish men who were the beneficiaries of my not trying to control the process, not because they had made a wise decision to include me, but because it suited my own interests. That was how I felt when we sat down to start deliberations, but they took me through a series of surprises from which I learned more than I ever could have imagined.
My first surprise was the jury's view of the professionalism and effectiveness of the two attorneys. Heading into the jury room for deliberations, I thought they had done an admirable and workmanlike job. Adding together all the jurors who agreed with me, that made one.
The prosecutor, Stephen Bishop, had Garrett Crowley, the victim, on the stand explaining his near brush with death.
"Mr. Crowley, please tell us what happened on the afternoon in question."
"Well, I'll be the first to admit I ain't no angel. I was there with Irene in her bed engaged in relations. We were all like missionaries and I was on top. I don't hear nobody come in and so I'm assumin' we're all alone. All of a sudden, I hear this loud bang and splinters of wood are flyin' at me from the bedpost. So I raise up and turn around and there is her husband, Leon, with this huge f-, uh monster gun in his hand. And I'm payin' attention now. And he says, 'You've been chasin' around after my wife, and other wives, for a long time now and you've finally found a husband who won't put up with it.' And he raises the gun, points it at me and shoots. And he hit me in the chest. But for some reason, it doesn't go into me. And he's like all snotty like, 'You're a lucky man, a misfire. Do you think it could happen twice in a row?' And I saw what the first bullet did to the bedpost so I just jumped up and run the hell out of there without even tryin' to get my clothes. And I hear him hollerin' at me as I'm flyin' down the steps and I just grab my keys from the table by the front door and I whip out of there naked to my car and peel on out of there.
"And so later, I talk to Irene and she tells me he said he better not see me cause I know what he's willin' to do to me."
No objection? This is hearsay intended to prove the truth of a threat made against him. Is Leon's attorney awake?
Garrett furnishes a few more details and a little background and Leon's attorney finally gets involved.
"You said you were engaged in relations with Mrs. Granger. What were you doing, plotting to become relatives?"
"Objection! He's trying to insult the victim instead of asking questions."
"I'm only asking him about his smarmy affairs and his predatory behavior."
The judge is banging his gavel. Neither of these guys seem to have much interest in order in the court. They just want to go at each other. Mr. Granger's champion, Blake Blake, I swear that's his name, you can't make this stuff up, compares Steve Bishop to the Soviet secret police. He's trying to jail a man for trying to save his marriage. Steve, he wants to make himself more accessible to the jury than Stephen, says, "Blake Blake Blake will do anything to put a homicidal maniac back on the street." After a little more shouting they finally hear Judge Andy, that's how I think of him given the conduct of the trial, tell them that if they don't stop they'll both be in jail before the defendant. It's a nice turn of phrase, but the defendant is out on bail. Is he intimating to the jury that we should find him guilty at this early stage of the evidence?
Blake asks Garrett how many husbands were willing to put up with it and Steve launches into another objection, starting to tick off a list of what's wrong with the question, but Judge Andy cuts him off and warns Blake that he's very close to the line. Blake rephrases.
"Isn't it true that you often go after other men's wives behind their backs?"
"Objection. Beyond the scope of the direct evidence, irrelevant and immaterial."
"Your honor, I'm asking about acts of deception; acts which require lying, sneaking, sniveling, covering up the truth. Surely that kind of behavior, if confirmed by the answers of the witness, calls into question his reliability for telling the truth, which is one of the key things to be evaluated by this jury in deciding what happened and who to believe."
Steve doesn't have anything further to say. It sounds like a pretty good argument to me. I wonder what Judge Andy had for breakfast.
"Overruled." Probably a very healthy breakfast.
Blake gets to ask about three other married women before Judge Andy says we get the idea and he should move on. He asks Garrett if he ever thinks about the lives he is destroying, the homes he's wrecking and Steve objects. Blake continues to ask about the children he's destroying by his actions as if no objection has intervened. Steve accuses him of having no respect for the court. Blake accuses Steve of trying to make the world safe for scum of the gutter to perpetrate their shameful acts against decent, law-abiding citizens. Steve says Blake will work for any slime that has the money to pay him. Judge Andy, kind of slow on the uptake, finally tells both of them that the way this works is they make objections to him, and he rules on them.
It seems to me that Blake has gotten in some good points about the quality of the victim and he has put Steve off his game. But when we're discussing the case later in the jury room, it seems I've missed the point entirely.
"That Blake man was really nasty. I don't like him one bit. I don't trust a person who would hire a lawyer like that," says Mrs. Horowitz. She is not alone in her assessment of Blake Blake.
We're supposed to be evaluating the defendant, and I guess that is part of what's happening. We're taking the benefit of the doubt away from him because we don't like his lawyer.
"That other lawyer was pretty nasty himself," offers Mr. Cruz. "But I felt bad for him when that Blake guy got him so upset. He's just trying to enforce the law."
The jury wants lawyers to be nice and polite? This isn't the British judicial system. They mix it up politely and respectfully. We come at each other with everything we've got. It's supposed to be adversarial, but maybe we take that to mean "nasty". Big lesson number one: the jury is going to be more favorably disposed to the lawyer they like better, and therefore to his client as well. They're not thrilled about sarcasm and tone of voice either. Boy, am I going to have to change.
Irene gets to testify. Blake puts up token resistance, citing marital privilege. But Judge Andy says it is not a privileged marital communication when made in front of a third party you're shooting at. I thought the privilege didn't apply in front of a third party you're not shooting at as well, but I guess the judge didn't feel he had to address that hypothetical situation.
Irene confirms the veiled threat directed toward Garrett and says her husband threatened her as well. He told her, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, who can say what will happen when an angry man owns a gun?" I'm beginning to like Leon Granger. He has some style.
Steve puts on a firearms expert who identifies the bullet that bounced off of Garrett as having come from Leon's gun. Steve asks him nothing about that obvious anomaly, but Blake has more curiosity on cross-examination. The witness agrees that is it unusual, there's an understatement, but that it has been "known to happen." I wonder how the rest of the jury will interpret this. "Known to happen," and the inevitable affirmative response to, "Is it possible," are really the equivalent of, "I seriously doubt it." But lawyers use them as if they reveal an epiphany.
.... There is more of this story ...