A week-long date with justice.
There's an old joke that juries are generally made up of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty. It's entirely possible that I'm just a geek, but I consider that joke a complete insult to civic duty. I've never much appreciated the humor in that particular line. Each time I've been summoned, I've always gladly called in to see if my number was pulled to show up. While it can be a hardship to miss work and perhaps take time away from family matters, I'm a justice girl. It's a privilege that I embrace.
And so a few weeks ago when I received a jury summons, I put the notice in a prominent place and called last Monday night as requested. Sure enough, I was to report to Washington County Courthouse at 8AM on Tuesday morning.
FYI: If you have reason to go the Washington County Courthouse, just don't bother with anything metal. The metal detectors there are exceptionally sensitive--worse than the airport. I observed person after person try and get through only to be brought back to remove an errant belt or watch or steel-shanked shoe. One woman was stopped for bringing a bottle of perfume in her purse. She told the guard to throw it out rather than have to take it back to her car and go through the line again. Getting in to the building was generally very slow, to say the least.
After joining the other 104 citizens in the basement of the courthouse, we waited for several hours until the court staff called our numbers to let us know we'd be headed to various courtrooms.
I noticed immediately that every person in the room was caucasian save one--who was perhaps of Indian descent. I also noticed that the defendant was an African-American male. I wondered when he looked at us if he considered us a jury of his peers.
It turned out that the man was defending himself-with an attorney present with whom he could consult. He was very plain spoken, sometimes difficult to understand. The district attorney's office was represented by a young woman who appeared to be no more than about 27 years old. She seemed very confident to me for such a young person. Her long, blonde ponytail flipped across her back and shoulders as she paced during her opening statement: definitive and self-assured.
The judge and the entire court staff were professional and helpful. And as we sat for many hours of testimony and presentation of evidence I admired how the judge went out of her way to make everything eminently fair. As the defendant was representing himself, the judge was patient and careful, making sure that he was certain of what he was doing and what he was trying to get across to us.
Ultimately we were presented with an impressive stack of evidence. By "impressive", I mean a lot. Piles of stuff. Our defendant was charged with six offenses: four felonies and two misdemeanors. These were serious allegations. We sat there Tuesday afternoon, Thursday and Friday morning listening and watching. But the other kind of "impressive"...meaning the kind that blows you away with how definitive it is...not so much. There were holes in the prosecution's story. Big ones. The kind of holes you could drive an eighteen-wheeler through. By the time the jury was given instruction and sent off to deliberate, many of us were shaking our heads.
How did this case even get to trial? Who is responsible for our tax dollars being spent in this frivolous manner? Who made the decision to charge this man based on this evidence? The twelve of us took the charges very seriously and several expressed sadness for the alleged victim who seemed to have a difficult life, but did not seem credible to me. I have no idea how the Washington County District Attorney's office ever thought her story made sense.
As you may have guessed, we acquitted the defendant of all charges. Unanimously. Even during the deliberations I kept thinking that its possible he could have done some of the lesser stuff, the misdemeanors, but the DA didn't prove it. The defendant had holes in his story, too. But the problems presented by his story were minor compared to what we were seeing from the DA.
This also prompted me to think about Oregon's 10-2 verdict system. Based on my experience this week, I'm more convinced than ever that if a prosecutor can't persuade the entire jury of a person's guilt, then the person shouldn't be convicted. Even though all twelve us were there, it was clear that some of us came out with different notes than others. Some of us heard things differently or gleaned different meaning from the same words. There's a reason we have the burden of proof standard that's "beyond a reasonable doubt". By convicting someone of a crime, we're taking away their freedom. Nobody should have that happen to them unless the entire jury can be convinced to that standard.
Thanks for the good week, Lady Justice.
|
November 14, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (55 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: greg haz | Nov 14, 2009 5:17:42 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful post Carla.
The only other state that allows non-unanimous verdicts in felony cases is Louisiana.
Oregon should keep better company and require unanimous verdicts!
Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 14, 2009 6:47:07 PM
2Randy: I've heard the logic is that where jail time isn't involved that you're not entitled to due process. Our criminalize everything mentality has so overwhelmed the system that niceties like a jury trial, etc., only are guaranteed were life or liberty are in jeopardy.
Add to that that Oregon law allows any complaint to be filed at any lower status. Technically, you could have misdemeanor murder. When they don't have the evidence or just want the fine and a mark on the record they often change the complaint to be a misdemeanor, or even a violation, and you find yourself on trial for something like criminal trespass without any of the usual protections, because it has been refiled as a violation.
It would be interesting if Carla filed a follow-up about how she was dismissed day one for showing evidence of independent thinking. Or maybe not. Either way would be interesting.
LA also has a habit of handling everything from traffic court (local, sheriff, state, all in one) to paternity suits to hunting cases to burglary in one court room, one judge, in serial order. More a circus than justice, in my experience, though I persisted and prevailed. Above the surreal spectacle hung a puking pelican, an allusion to the bird that supposedly will feed its young on its own blood. Things like Katrina merely expose that the social infrastructure ain't exactly up to code down there.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 14, 2009 7:03:24 PM
Based on historic evidence, Jewish tradition would argue the opposite on unanimous juries. The Sanhedrin (סַנְהֶדְרִין), made up of 23 judges, could only convict if it had at least 2 votes to acquit. The logic basically being that if 23 people hear the evidence and all agree, not all the evidence was heard.
The evangelist John, very found of literary devices, most likely included the characters of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea as friends of Jesus, because they were members of the Sanhedrin. A reader that understood such things would wonder how a rabid mob got a death conviction. Having two buddies on the Sanhedrin is a device worthy of Hollywood.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 14, 2009 7:19:57 PM
Who is responsible for our tax dollars being spent in this frivolous manner?
Oh my God! Did Carla just admit that government actually might WASTE some money. :-)
Posted by: LT | Nov 14, 2009 7:30:22 PM
"The government" does dumb things all the time. So do people who get elected to public office (such as the legislature) and then deny they are "public employees".
Individuals matter.
"How did this case even get to trial? Who is responsible for our tax dollars being spent in this frivolous manner? Who made the decision to charge this man based on this evidence? "
Prosecutor's can make mistakes, although the smart ones know when the evidence is not there.
According to the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, no one can be brought to trial except after indictment by a grand jury. I have testified in front of a grand jury (something witnessed more than a quarter century ago) and been in the jury pool for Grand Jury service. Grand Juries are chosen in much the same way as regular juries.
MP, "the government", the prosecutor's office, the grand jury and the regular jury were made up of individuals. Individuals can make mistakes.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 14, 2009 7:38:09 PM
"How did this case even get to trial? Who is responsible for our tax dollars being spent in this frivolous manner? Who made the decision to charge this man based on this evidence? "
Well, to add a similarly other-culture opposite thinking... In the Netherlands, anyone can dismiss or resolve a case (with permission of the accused), from the cop on the beat to the judge. That really puts the kosh on when questions like, "how did this get to a trial" come up. They don't very often, though.
It's nice that all consider it their job to make sure your aforementioned does not happen.
Posted by: Kurt Hagadakis, Esq. | Nov 14, 2009 7:44:10 PM
MP, "the government", the prosecutor's office, the grand jury and the regular jury were made up of individuals. Individuals can make mistakes.
We're kind of shackled to that, in our system. Oodles and oodles of psychophysical studies prove that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Any good trial attorney will tell you that eyewitness testimony is what sways juries the most.
Worth posting this link, if you care to really think about that.
Posted by: Ricky | Nov 14, 2009 8:58:49 PM
Did anyone notice Obama is in Asia promoting tax-exempt, tariff free trade zones in Asia, while the far left wing of my party wants to promote taxation of local business with 66 & 67? Doubt it.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 14, 2009 9:03:24 PM
Oh my God! Did Carla just admit that government actually might WASTE some money. :-)
Oh don't even get me started on how I think the Oregon Justice System wastes money. When the state spends more on prisons than schools...you know it's time to scrutinize how we're managing.
:)
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 14, 2009 9:33:24 PM
Ricky:
There are many posts here where you can comment on M66 and M67. Please stay on topic.
Posted by: mp97303 | Nov 14, 2009 10:02:31 PM
Carla
See, this is another thing we agree on. Why does the DOC need a 46% increase in their budget from the 05-07 budget? The short answer is they don't. Their budget goes up $300M for 09-11. Eliminate that and we erase almost 1/2 of the budget shortfall when M66/67 fail.
Posted by: George Anonymuncule Seldes | Nov 14, 2009 10:43:13 PM
Welcome to the American version of high stakes gambling where any defendant who dares to take a case to trial instead of pleading down to lesser charges is absolutely hammered in order to promote the career aspirations of prosecutors who, although sworn to do justice, become careerists interested only in closing cases with convictions, never mind who gets hurt along the way and how many guilty people are totally ignored while someone innocent is forced to plead guilty because of the terror tactics of the prosecutors.
Posted by: rw | Nov 14, 2009 11:25:21 PM
Zarathoo just made my heart go pitty-pat. I love the subtleties of the Sanhedrin even as I cannot call them to mind. But I get pretty breathless every time I read of it. Thank you for that tasty reminder.
Posted by: jrw | Nov 15, 2009 8:36:26 AM
If you really want to get a rant going, check out the Oregon Youth Authority. Some of their placements in "rehab programs" are truly reckless and scary. They also don't tend to share all the information they have with the schools that the kids under their supervision get placed in, and get pretty huffy when pushed for details. Um--hel-LO, sometimes the school really DOES need to know what kind of behavior to watch out for from their little angels--who've already been adjudicated.
We also won't talk about what DHS (Department of Human Services, NOT Homeland Security) does. That alone is also rant-worthy, especially what they tend not to disclose to the schools they place the kids in.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 15, 2009 8:45:13 AM
Great post Carla, I also have served Jury duty (twice) and find it a part of my duty as a citizen.
Part of the reason why "bad" cases get moved to jury trial is the Grand Jury system. Having served on the Jackson county Grand Jury I understand that in Oregon it takes very little to charge and refer a case to the Grand Jury. Typically a seated jury meets one day a week for 2-3 months. In that day they will hear evidence from prosecution in 14-20 cases. It can be mind numbing.
Young, inexperienced (but confident) prosecutors will take cases to jury triel and sometimes try to use the very weight (as in mass quantities) of evidence over the substance of said evisence. It appears the case you heard was one such case.
Posted by: Lady Justice | Nov 15, 2009 9:30:03 AM
The fact that this defendant wa acquitted doesn't mean the trial was a waste, Carla. It means the system works. If the goverment always prevailed, we'd be right to call them "show trials". Thankfully, it doesn't. We should all be pleased that there was an acquittal instead of criticizing the prosecutor for bringing the case.
Posted by: James W Sager III | Nov 15, 2009 10:21:35 AM
You know nothing of Jewish law. Probably read the anti-christian rhetoric of some Jewish theologian. Maybe worse. Sounds like you read "historical researches". Our courts are a mirror of Divine law. There are things to remember before court duty. It's a duty. Carla may not appreciate that old saw, but I say that it is a sin to avoid your jury duty. THat's why it's calls duty.
The best person in the world today fails under God's law, but even the worst of us, is accepted through Jesus. When you're feeling high or low in life, always remember that God has better things planned. Much better. Big bucks, just pray! Preaching is important because a lot of what people hear isn't the truth especially when fed by enemies. All environmentalists, feminists, atheists, and non church going Christians are enemies. Acts13:24 Before Jesus began his work, John preached to all the people of Israel that they should turn from their sins and be baptized. Heaven is my throne,says the Lord,and the earth ismy footstool.What kindof house would you build for me?Where is the place for me to live in. God knows the thoughts, words and actions of everyone, everywhere. You cannot hide from God, so don't try. Most prosecutors are Godly and are inspired by the spirit to know when and when not to prosecute.
It bothers me how many people think that more than one religion can be correct. That doesn't even make sense logically. You either believe something or you don't. I'm obsessed with God. I worship him. I think we're all called to be full of zeal. One of the most important things you can do in this life is let people know God is real, Jesus is LORD.
It's easy really.
Psalms 37:18 The Lord takes care of those who obey him, and the land will be theirs forever.
Psalm37:5Give yourself to the Lord; trust in him, and he will help you; 6 he will make your righteousness shine like the noonday sun.
Ps 37:3-4Trust in the LORD and do good;live in the land and be safe.Seek your happiness in the LORD;and he will give you your heart's desire. All of them.
Liberals always want to take away your material possesions. They are a gift from God to the elect. Those liberals show their God-hate.
Visit my website and be saved!
Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Nov 15, 2009 10:37:43 AM
Posted by: jrw | Nov 15, 2009 8:36:26 AM
We also won't talk about what DHS (Department of Human Services, NOT Homeland Security) does. That alone is also rant-worthy, especially what they tend not to disclose to the schools they place the kids in.
Amen! And the noose is tightening. Same strategy is being used on the elderly now. Remember ritalin and "hyperactive kids" that were nothing more than their parents not liking their being kids? Now similarly incovenient behavior is labeled senility in the elderly. New research shows popular anti-psychotics are killing those that receive them.
Taking kids away from parents = positive cash flow for DHS. There's a model. It also proves that gov can be efficient, when motivated. What no one cares to address is how our great progressive bond issues get implemented by stodgy conservatives that are only looking for personal gain or a plausible excuse why the policy really was bad in the first place.
DHS has been called out here before, chapter and verse. Universally ignored (that MUST be troll talk), except for the time that Kari asked for specifics (rudely, but we'll overlook that). Quoted direct, first hand evidence, no one cared to follow up. Won't even start on the buddy layed off from DHS because he WOULDN'T commit food stamp fraud.
With commissions like OLCC and departments like DHS, I wonder why progressives don't unconditionally trust state gov?
Oh, the relevance is that court is the mechanism by which the state puts its jackboot on your neck and implements these policies. As I've pointed out before, a private citizen cannot bring a criminal complaint before the court, in our system. If it's real people, it's a petty civil case. How do I know it's petty? Because it made it to court. When your criteria is preponderance of evidence, you have professional officers of the court looking at the evidence on both sides, and you have case law showing how the court will think, there NEVER, NEVER is a good reason for a civil case to be tried. Only ego and refusing to accept reality can be the motive. That is never good for either side.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 15, 2009 2:17:54 PM
The fact that this defendant wa acquitted doesn't mean the trial was a waste, Carla. It means the system works. If the goverment always prevailed, we'd be right to call them "show trials". Thankfully, it doesn't. We should all be pleased that there was an acquittal instead of criticizing the prosecutor for bringing the case.
Perhaps in some cases, but not this one.
To bring a person up on such serious charges--where an individual's freedom is at stake--it seems to me that it should be incumbent upon those who bring them to at least be responsible in doing so. In my view, this didn't seem that way at all.
So while the defendant was not convicted, a great deal of time and money was spent that didn't need to be. With Oregon's budget being so precarious--this seems like an obvious area to address.
Posted by: anon | Nov 15, 2009 3:05:17 PM
WHAT WERE THE CHARGES?
You cannot continue to promote this thread if you are too afraid to tell us the charges.
Posted by: John V. | Nov 15, 2009 3:44:22 PM
"She seemed very confident to me for such a young person. Her long, blonde ponytail flipped across her back and shoulders as she paced during her opening statement: definitive and self-assured."
Carla, dear, it sounds like the prosecutor was younger and better looking than you. Did that factor in here? Perhaps had she been black, her confidence would not have bothered you.
Which leads me to wonder: Why did you mention the race of the defendant but not the race of the victim? You do mention that the victim was female and for that detail, thank you. It makes me wonder if the alleged crime was of a sexual nature.
It's curious, though, that you take the time to detail the prosecutor's hair, but you are short on details of the alleged crime and evidence. If the defendant in fact committed no crime, congratulations. If he did, and if he reoffends, it would truly be justice if you or another juror were his victim. But that's not likely is it? You're not poor, and you're white.
By the way, I've defended myself twice in court, both times in front of a judge. I got off both times, even though I was guilty once.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 15, 2009 4:29:54 PM
Carla, dear, it sounds like the prosecutor was younger and better looking than you. Did that factor in here? Perhaps had she been black, her confidence would not have bothered you.
"Her confidence" bothered me? That's what you got out of this?
Jeez. If the best you've got is that I was jealous of her appearance and I don't like confident women...then your bothering to comment here is a waste of everyone's time.
And anon...you know enough about the charges to understand the basic nature of the case. And yes, I can continue to talk about this without being more specific.
Posted by: Brian Collins | Nov 15, 2009 4:45:18 PM
Just to clarify, Oregon spends more on prisons than on higher education, not K-12 schools. K-12 is still the largest portion of the general fund + lottery fund budgets. Not saying that's a good thing, but just wanted to make sure no one got the wrong idea.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Nov 15, 2009 5:51:19 PM
To add a little about what Kurt said...Part of the issue of how "these" cases get to court is our Grand Jury process.
Typically, a person (or victim) makes a felony complaint to the police. The police dutifully take the complaint, and then make an attempt to interview the accused. If the accused is at all savvy he/she will invoke their right to counsel, or their right to remain silent.
Next, the police believing they may or may not have enough to arrest the accused, simply forward the complaint to the DA for review. The DA in turn (if the victim is vocal enough) may decide to let the Grand Jury review the case, and hear from the victim directly. Remember, the accused is not invited to tell his/her side at the Grand Jury hearing.
Next, the GJ (hearing only one side), hands down an indictment, the accused is promptly arrested, and a court date is set.
Now, the DA who gets this case sees it is weak, and offers the defendant a deal. The accused (sometimes) refuses to accept. The DA may be offended at this refusal to deal, or the DA might be young and itching to go to court, or the DA may simply believe the accused guilty even though the case is very weak. But for whatever reason the DA figures, what the hell, lets go to court and let a jury decide. You did, and there ya go.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Nov 15, 2009 6:41:19 PM
"I have no idea how the Washington County District Attorney's office ever thought her story made sense"
Let me pose scenario using a fictitious example. A suspect gropes a woman in a public swimming pool, and she complains. No cameras, no witnesses, no evidence. The woman does not have a great reputation in the community, but is not known to be a liar.
The DA knows this particular defendant has done this kind of things in the past, even convicted one time for something less than sex abuse. But the judge determines the previous cases are not relevant to the new charges, and cannot be used to influence the jury in this case.
Knowing the case is weak, the DA moves forward anyway in hopes of getting this guy off the street by having the jury hear the victim to decide.
Carla, I have no affiliation to the Wa. Co. DA whatsoever, but I give this example so that your story might not cast a negative light on a DA's decision to go after a defendant in certain cases. The jury is not always given the whole story so they can remain un-biased. Others do not have that luxury.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 15, 2009 6:59:05 PM
Roy:
You may be right that the defendant is a guy who has done bad stuff before. But based on the testimony of the police officers and investigators this defendant was cooperative and compliant with the police from the beginning.
I recognize that the jury might not get all the information based on rules of evidence--and that its the job of the jury to be unbiased for the one case they hear. But there would have to be enormous amounts of missing information to convict this guy, IMO.
Posted by: ex_democrat | Nov 15, 2009 7:27:40 PM
The democratic party has lost its way. The Obama-Geithner administration oversaw one of the greaters transfers of wealth from the working classes to the rich in history. The Obama administration tacitly condones torture and militarism. And \the democratic party supported the largest setback in a woman's right to choose in decades -- the Stupack amendment.
Its time for progressives to leave the democratic party!
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=262
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=264
Posted by: mlw | Nov 15, 2009 9:15:53 PM
It sounds like the system worked - there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and you acquitted. I think it is a mistake to go "behind the curtain" and question the prosecutor, however. While you could be right, it could also be a case where the evidence appeared stronger before trial. For instance, in domestic violence trials, the victim often refuses to even appear, knowing that her economic interests are not aligned with the State's interests in seeing justice done. Systems that have a "no drop" policy in these cases have much higher conviction rates. As it turns out, you have to be willing to go all the way to trial with cases and sometimes lose if you want to do a good job as a prosecutor.
Furthermore, before you cast stones, perhaps you should ask how many cases the prosecutor was carrying? Frequently, new DAs in busy counties carry 100+ cases on their docket. It could be a case where perhaps the DA lacked adequate resources to prepare for trial. It's an unfortunately common scenario, given the degree to which some counties starve the DA's offices for resources.
You might also wonder why this person chose to defend himself. Yes, he could just be a guy who believes he should present his own case. Or, he could have been told by his defense attorney that the defense attorney cannot allow him to present affirmatively false evidence if he's represented. I've known many defendants who defended themselves with "standby counsel" so that they could perjure themselves more freely.
In short, while it's always good to hear a story about how the system worked for a juror, it's not such a great idea to assume that the system is broken because it works as it should.
As for the side thread about how much Oregon spends, please remember that the spending figures as a percentage of the budget overlook the sheer number of functions that Oregon puts in the DOC budget. In other states, they're under different agencies. Further, one prime reason that Oregon (and California) have high prison expenses is that there's a commonality of interests between the corrections officers unions and the public - neither want cheaper, minimum security prisons in their communities, despite the reality that these facilities do a better job at reforming prisoners at a cheaper cost. People feel so much better when the bad people are in high security facilities in Eastern Oregon, supporting the local economy with lots of corrections jobs. They don't always realize that they get that warm fuzzy at a big cost to K-12 budgets and increased recidivism.
Posted by: Bo Todd | Nov 15, 2009 9:51:37 PM
"As you may have guessed, we acquitted the defendant of all charges."
Based on your other postings, I assumed that as soon as I read the second paragraph.
Since you likely have good public record seeking skills, why don't you use those to see the prior record of the man you aquitted. I am anxious to hear what you found.
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 15, 2009 11:50:30 PM
Kurt, esq. made the point up front that there is a serious mismatch between logic and practice in our system, owing to the fact that jurors are illogical. Sounds like Carla's bunch was a big exception and did their job.
But this is the bit I don't get. So you all would like the French system, about fact finding rather than which side can mount a more vigorous presentation? That's the only alternative. Yes, things like the prosecutor's hair should not matter. But, look again how our system is defined. How can it not matter? How I wear my hair to a job interview "shouldn't matter". Is there any sense in which it doesn't? I wish Jimmy Carter's vision for EEOC had been implemented and then, by law, it wouldn't matter how I wore my hair to a job interview (unless they had done the number crunching to show that, in fact, it does matter).
It's like the poster lamenting that we don't live in a "fact based culture". No we don't. Good iNTj rationals like myself wish we did. Every time I've heard that suggested the response consists mainly in shrieks of pure horror. So what are you all saying?
That vid link Kurt posted had a really good quote about the reality of American justice, being as its based on the naive perceptions of a group of "peers". "Your client is sitting at the defense table. In the jury's mind, that's strike one. Then a police officer takes that stand and says, 'he did it'; that's strike two". I was heartened to read Carla's account of the trial she saw, as it seemed those jurors managed to not get sucked into that logic. I doubt my "peers" in Indianapolis would be so diligent with their charge.
One could argue though that we do have a more rational version of justice, and it's called a bench trial. Works for me. I've been to court 35 times, civil + criminal, and won 30, drew 2, lost 3 (not a lawyer, just logical, know Latin, and a bit litigious). With very few exceptions (1 of the 2) judges are righteous blokes. The exception was as crooked as a dog's back leg, but that's probably about par for juries too. Besides the good logic that Ms. Brown elucidated in the initial response, I think that my experience is behind a lot of judges going along with the reduced rights regimen.
Posted by: 401(k) funds allocation | Nov 16, 2009 1:24:13 AM
I can understand your feelings. Well, people use to judge other by seeing the things they wanted. They disregard the truth beyond. If you haven't started a retirement account, you should – and once you have, then the question of how you should approach your 401(k) funds allocation comes up, or allocating to another plan that you've selected. The first question of 401(k) funds allocation is whether to invest in stocks or bonds. As we've seen recently, stock markets can be volatile.
Posted by: Carl | Nov 16, 2009 2:59:07 AM
Please read about the investigation of the Innocence Project by the Cook County Prosecutor's office. Sounds like the weight of the government is being brought to bear against a bunch of college kids who had the temerity to raise questions regarding prosecutorial misconduct.
Posted by: The Hamster | Nov 16, 2009 8:44:01 AM
"Who is responsible for our tax dollars being spent in this frivolous manner?" - the general public for voting in moronic politicians?!
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 16, 2009 8:49:28 AM
Bo Todd:
If I were to do as you suggested and found a criminal background for the defendant, exactly how would I have complete faith in previous charges and convictions in Washington County based on what I just witnessed?
I don't think that I (and probably a lot of the other jurors I served with) could. A number of people on the jury articulated being appalled that this had gone as far as it had--it wasn't just me.
Posted by: Jim | Nov 16, 2009 9:02:11 AM
James Sager, in your long winding screed, you wrote: "Liberals always want to take away your material possesions."
Sounds a lot like what Jesus wanted too. Thanks for reaffirmation.
Posted by: Greg D. | Nov 16, 2009 10:43:34 AM
Don't get the point of this post. Juries acquit people all the time. The system is designed to permit the DA (and/or grand jury) to make charging decisions and a jury to decide whether the "people" have sustained their burden of proof by making a finding of guilty or not-guilty. If DAs only prosecute people they believe to have a 95 - 100% likelihood of conviction, there would be a lot of seriously bad folks running around out there.
If this was intended as a dig toward the young female deputy DA with the "blond ponytail" I find that particularly objectionable. We all have to start our careers somewhere, and if she was young and experienced as described, it sounds like handling the prosection of this lower level criminal was a perfectly fine place to start.
Posted by: 13th Juror | Nov 16, 2009 10:45:53 AM
Based on this report, it is hard to tell whether the case shouldn't have been charged, was overcharged, or was weak but had to be tried (as mlw explained)
But its interesting that Carla had this experience this week in light of....this charging decisions by the Washington Co. DA's office:
http://wweek.com/columns/rogue/#36.01.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 16, 2009 10:47:48 AM
LOL why would a "blonde ponytail" be a dig? I have one of those too, sometimes.
I'm sure DAs do make charging decisions all the time. Clearly I think they need to do a much better job (at least in the jurisdiction where I live) of managing this based on what I witnessed last week.
And to help you out, THAT is the point of this post.
Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 16, 2009 10:57:37 AM
Posted by: 401(k) funds allocation | Nov 16, 2009 1:24:13 AM
I can understand your feelings. Well, people use to judge other by seeing the things they wanted. They disregard the truth beyond. If you haven't started a retirement account, you should – and once you have, then the question of how you should approach your 401(k) funds allocation comes up, or allocating to another plan that you've selected. The first question of 401(k) funds allocation is whether to invest in stocks or bonds. As we've seen recently, stock markets can be volatile.
So, pure link spammers have software that can generate more coherent text than some of the posters? Great. Keep it wide open!
Posted by: Zarathustra | Nov 16, 2009 11:10:49 AM
If this was intended as a dig toward the young female deputy DA with the "blond ponytail" I find that particularly objectionable. We all have to start our careers somewhere, and if she was young and experienced as described, it sounds like handling the prosection of this lower level criminal was a perfectly fine place to start.
I can tell you that young inexperienced prosecutors (with or without pony tail) can be very handy to have on a case. I was charged once with speeding in a school zone (innocent, of course) and faced such a prosecutor. She made the mistake of letting me go on a fishing expedition when I questioned the officer, before I made my defense. I was acquitted and the judge said afterward, "I'm glad I didn't have a bet with someone on whether I would convict you, because I would have lost. I live about a block from that school crossing and have 2 kids that walk through it every day". I wish we had rational judges like that on every case. Who would've thought in Carrolton, TX? Just goes to show that stereotypes bite hard.
And if you wonder why trials can be a bit boring, he gave me advice to "elaborate more". Said I would simply make a point then go on, assuming it was heard and understood. Yeah, me. If I'm too succinct...gads!
Posted by: John V. | Nov 15, 2009 3:44:22 PM
Carla, dear, it sounds like the prosecutor was younger and better looking than you. Did that factor in here? Perhaps had she been black, her confidence would not have bothered you.
Sounds like you haven't seen Carla!
Posted by: Bo Todd | Nov 16, 2009 11:14:57 AM
"Bo Todd:
If I were to do as you suggested and found a criminal background for the defendant, exactly how would I have complete faith in previous charges and convictions in Washington County based on what I just witnessed?"
Carla, I think you either don't want to know or you have looked and you didn't like what you saw- in either case you are willfully putting blinders on yourself or this auidence. You won't even tell the audience what the charges were that you are so proud of aquitting him on.
It is one thing to be proud of service on a jury and holding the State to its burden of proof, quite another to be happy about having had a legal duty to let a bad person off and turning the anger against the DA who is allowed to make a charging decision based on a suspect's record, but is not generally allowed to present that information as evidence to a jury.
Posted by: S. Palin | Nov 16, 2009 11:16:22 AM
Posted by: 13th Juror | Nov 16, 2009 10:45:53 AM
Based on this report,
http://wweek.com/columns/rogue/#36.01.
Rogue? That's my queue. How about a timely quote from my book? "If God had not meant for mankind to be carnivores, he wouldn't have made animals out of meat!"
Now, turn the discussion to kangaroo courts issuing summary judgments without the defendant present, and I'll go rogue in my panties!
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 16, 2009 11:16:56 AM
Bo Todd:
You haven't answered my question: based on my experience, exactly how would I have complete faith in previous charges and convictions in Washington County based on what I just witnessed?
Posted by: Thomas Edgar Kennedy | Nov 16, 2009 11:35:44 AM
Bo, be consoled with the words of Edwin Meese III:
"If someone's charged with a crime, they must have had something to do with it". And again, "You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime".
Liberuls can't quite grasp that we go overboard catering to their values by HAVING a trial. Fortunately, traffic speed cameras are opening the door to sanity. As Peri pointed out up top (guess anyone can get something right once), that trend is spreading to other areas. Like she says, couple that with the fact that Oregon law allows refiling a crime as a violation and you can pretty much mail someone the outcome without all this expensive overhead.
Surprised that the issue of what the criminal justice system spends was raised. Lowering the bar 50% for what it takes to convict, would save us 99% of the costs. It's really worth thinking about.
So a defendent isn't guilty of THIS crime. Have you seen most defendents? I will guarantee they've done something! You have it so good. If I was in charge, I'd go on preemptive raids through high crime neighborhoods and arrest all the obvious criminals. Just the obvious ones, but that's an awful lot of people. Does ANYONE doubt that that would lower crime? And before the standard objection is raised, cops and courts are more expensive than prisons.
(Hey, somehow my named got changed last time I posted . How does that happen?)
Posted by: Bo Todd | Nov 16, 2009 1:38:33 PM
To answer your question:
1) I am guessing that you have already looked at his history saw it originated in Washington County and therefore my answer of "there is more than one county and they all cannot be corrupt" won't do.
2) You somehow imply that Washington County DA overcharges and is incompetent and then if they do get convictions that must not be the result of competence but rather taking advantage of jurors who apparently did not have your wisdom on what really was going on. So, I guess you can't be convinced.
However, don't you think your readers should at least know the charges? You can keep the bad record you later discoverd to yourself. I am mean if you are proud of acquitting someone wouldn't you be prouder of acquitting a murderer as opposed to a shoplifter?
Posted by: Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration | Nov 16, 2009 1:45:03 PM
Only in very few occasions I had the chance to view from the perspective of a jury member. It's not a pleasant job, if you ask me, there is a lot of pressure involved and difficult trials where there is lack of concrete evidence you just have to rely on probabilities. I wasn't built to handle the pressure of deciding over other people's lives.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 16, 2009 1:48:50 PM
BoTodd:
1. Wrong, I haven't. I'm asking how can I be confident that any possible criminal background in Washington County could be appropriate and legit?
2. In this case, I believe something went wrong from the outset. I have no idea if it was overcharging or incompetence. I have no idea if its happened in other cases--although upthread someone else noted that the WaCo DA is being scrutinized for what some consider inappropriate charging. So if it happens in one case..(to lift from your language...)
Posted by: John V. | Nov 16, 2009 2:16:18 PM
Carla, if my bothering to comment was a "waste of everyone's time," then what does it say about you that you took the time to reply. And where do you get off being a spokeswoman for "everyone."
Too bad you avoided answering my other questions about the details of the case. Since you are afraid to confront some possibly unpleasant truths that may not agree with your politics, how about telling us how the judge wore his hair. And how about the defendant? How did he wear his hair?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Randy2 | Nov 14, 2009 3:12:05 PM
Interesting you should post this today. This month's Oregon State Bar Bulletin has a thoughtful article about the disappearance of the civil trial -- and the implications for the criminal justice system.
Don't know how to do a link for those interested; perhaps Carla can track it down.
Randy2