So absolutely awful. Has anyone else ever had to sit on a jury for a really tough case?

[Meldread]

I was called up for jury duty for the first time ever. I was mildly excited and didn't mind. I was more than happy to do my civic duty, but I didn't expect to have such a horrible case to be dropped into my lap. It's over and done with now, so I can talk about it. However, I keep going over the details in my mind trying to decide if I made the right choice. I ultimately know I did what the law required, but it doesn't change the awfulness of the situation.

The case was about a young girl, I had actually gone to school with her older sister. So perhaps this weighs on me a bit harder than some of the other folks who sat on the jury. Her older sister was a nice person, a really beautiful person inside and out. I didn't really know her younger sister, so I was allowed to sit on the jury. (We live in a small community, and the only people who were disqualified were those who had family relations or close friendships. I hadn't spoken to her since we've been to school.)

Her younger sister testified that over the course of several years, beginning in kindergarten that her uncle molested her constantly. We rode the bus together, and we lived on the same road, so this was happening at the same time we associated. As time progressed and she got older he began to force her to have oral sex (her on him). She testified that this happened anywhere from 30 to 50 times before he stopped. He then began to molest her again before stopping all together. It didn't end until the year 2000. She finally got the courage to come forward early this year 2007 in January.

She was very indifferent during her testimony. Emotionless even. However, looking over at her family they were obviously ripped apart over this... Her mother was crying, her father on the verge of tears himself, her sister holding strong but obviously distraught. She was the only one to get up and testify on her own behalf. There were no other witnesses. There was no evidence.

We had to watch as her grandmother came forward and testified against her. Her grandmother was obviously very confused. She began to talk about her dead husband. Both of the girls parents worked so when she got off the bus it was at her grandmothers house. Her grandmother testified that the girl was never once out of her sight the entire time. We discounted her testimony due to the fact that she was obviously protecting her son-in-law and the fact that she was confused. We watched as her aunt (by blood) came forward and testified on her husbands behalf. She too was lying, claiming that over a seven year period her husband was not separated from her a single moment.

We heard testimony from a detective who did the girl a disservice. Through an hour and a half interview he condensed it all down to a page and a quarter of notes. When the girl took the stand she said some things that were not in the notes and the defense lawyer tried to paint her as a liar. We didn't believe it but we couldn't discount it, either.

We watched as several other family members, even one who was working during the time the events allegedly took place came forward to defend him. We watched as he took the stand in his own defense and ended up being caught in a lie about how he reported to the police. (The detective who testified before him said that he came with his lawyer, but he claimed that he came alone. We believed the detective.)

In the end the entire case came down to a he said and she said situation. We had to go and decide if his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, we believed the girl was telling the truth. All of us agreed that, in our gut, that this happened AT LEAST once. However, with no evidence to prove that it happened it left room for reasonable doubt and we all felt that because of that we had to return a verdict of not guilty.

She claimed that he told her that he did it to her cousins. However, after she said that the judge disqualified that information so we couldn't take it into consideration. The entire situation was awful. Her family was torn apart. Everyone involved lives in walking distance. Some of them had young children.

The prosecutor simply failed. There is no other way to put it. He flopped big time. His only witness was the girl. That was it and he didn't even know what she was going to say when she took the stand. I could have done a better job! Because of his failure we could not convict him of a crime that he is likely to commit again, and we had to let a man who in our gut we believe is guilty go free.

It was an awful situation. I am glad I got a chance to serve (and would do it again) but this was an awful case and the prosecutor was horrible. So was the defense attorney. The defense attorney's opening line for his closing statement was: "After we braked for lunch, I sat here trying to think of what to say to you... my mind was drawing a blank." How about that he's not guilty? Eventually he went on to talk about the American Flag, blah, blah... trying to evoke patriotism. It actually backfired because once we got back there just about everyone said his closing statement pretty much convinced them that the guy was guilty.

Sigh... has anyone else had to sit on a jury for such an awful case before?

[ThomCat]

1. Rapes, molestations, and sexual assaults are the hardest cases

to prosecute. There is so rarely any solid evidence. So few of these monsters ever get convicted, because there just isn't enough proof.

And after all is said and done, he'll use this to claim his innocence, even if everyone believes he really did it. The lack of evidence will be used to smear her for the rest of her life as a liar.

And some people will use this as permission to rape or sexually abuse her in the future. After all, will she be willing to go through the legal system again if she knows it will do no good? Will people brush her off as a serial liar?

This will hurt her far more than it will hurt him. x(

:cry:

[redqueen]

11. *sigh*

everything you said is true
and it breaks my heart

[ThomCat]

13. Yeah. I'm going to be thinking about this for a long time.

:(

It breaks my heart too.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

2. How awful!

I wonder if the girl's cousins could take a stand against him. It seems like they should have been allowed to testify as well.

[Meldread]

3. You see, this is where the Prosecutor FAILED!

Had we had anything to collaborate her story we could have convicted him. All he would have had to produce was at least one more person. A childhood friend who could testify that she hinted or confided to, or felt that something was wrong and wasn't telling anyone... or if he had questioned her before hand and found out about her cousins they could have taken the stand. We got none of that. We had to discount her testimony regarding her cousins because they weren't there to testify. (The Judge ordered it.)

The Prosecutor had nearly half a year to develop a case and he had nothing. He basically had the testimony she had given to the detective and the indictment. That was it.

Ultimately, I feel we did the right thing under the law. If I had to make the decision again I would. The jury consisted of:

3 White Men (One Middle Aged, One Elderly, One Young - I was the young one)
9 Women (One Elderly White Woman, Two Middle Aged White Women, Three Elderly Black Women, Two Middle Aged Black Women, One Young Black Woman)

The prosecutor couldn't have asked for a better jury!

He didn't even call her parents to testify on her behalf, so we had to sit back there and debate over why her parents didn't notice something was wrong... wouldn't she be withdrawn? Wouldn't there be some sign that they could pick up on? How did this go on for so many years and happen so many times without ANYONE noticing ANYTHING?

Ultimately we had to decide what to do and we were all in agreement that we had to return a not guilty verdict. We debated over what this would mean for her family and we all thought that our course of action was the best. Her family was torn a part, and they were all once very close. Her own grandmother didn't even look at her granddaughter as she left the stand. Had we convicted him he would have appealed and when that happened she would have to go through it all again. The wounds in her family would constantly be open. It was our hope that if nothing else came out of it that her family could find a way to get past it and heal the wounds. We also hoped that if what the girl said about her cousins that they might be convinced to come forward and press charges. If that happens then he will be convicted and justice can be served.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

4. It's possible that the judge did not allow their testimony.

I know it's infuriating; but sometimes there's much more to the case than the jury knows. To the judge's way of thinking, if the defendant wasn't convicted of that prior offense, it couldn't be considered as evidence in this case.

[Meldread]

9. Oh yes, a lot went on that we didn't know about.

We had to keep going back to the jury room several times. One time we got back, sat down, and the lawyers suddenly seemed to have some disagreement, and we had to get right back up and go back in the jury room. It was insane. I can't believe the judge threw anything out when there was so little in her favor.

It was an insane trial. His defense was basically that he couldn't have done it because he had been impotent since 1993! It was almost laughable, because he brought no documents proving it and his lawyers excuse was that the doctor who diagnosed him had moved. What? Like it wouldn't be in his medical records? Like the facility at which he was diagnosed didn't keep track of where the doctor was going?

Back in the jury room I basically said this: If I were that man, and I knew a almost a half a year in advance that I was going on trial and if I were REALLY impotent... the first damn thing I'd do would be to see a doctor to get proof. Even if I couldn't prove that I had been impotent since 1993, it would be enough to put "reasonable doubt" in the juries mind. He didn't do that. So we basically considered it a flat out lie, but because he didn't actually have to prove it was true (the burden of proof is on the Prosecutor) it didn't matter.

The prosecutor also failed to explain why it took so long for her to come forward. Had things like this not been common in the news and media it would have hurt her case. Luckily we all understood that this was not that uncommon. Even so, it would have benefited the prosecution to put an expert child psychologist on the stand.

Really, the system did fail the girl, but it was not the jury that failed but the prosecutor. If had he give us circumstantial evidence - any evidence - we would have found him guilty.

[China_cat]

5. You did what you had to do.

Hopefully, this will put the family (and others) on guard against this predator if nothing else.

This is the same situation that let OJ go free. I'm convinced he did it but that the jury did the right thing with what they were given. It's the ONLY way our justice system can truly work. Awful as that can be at times.

[InternalDialogue]

6. Meldread, I sympathize.

The only trial I was selected for was not nearly so gut-wrenching as the one you sat on, but our decision mirrored yours.

My trial was a domestic violence charge, and we heard from both husband and wife, but no other witnesses.

In deliberations, we were pretty united in that we believed the wife's story at the gut level, but on the deliberation of the evidence, the prosecution just didn't make the case. We were able to come up with any number of reasonable explanations for the testimony -- but no reasonable evidence to believe just the wife. We were resigned to act accordingly.

It was not long after that trial that my state put into effect a new system of allowing juries to ask questions of the litigants' lawyers or the judge, in order to clarify further information (or lack of information) presented in the case. I think it would have been enough in our situation to change the outcome... but that's just speculation.

I'm sorry for the pain it's causing you, but thanks for posting.

:hug:

[Meldread]

7. That would have helped so much.

We could have gotten to the bottom of things sooner had we been allowed to ask questions. There was absolutely one question that was never touched on, and why we ultimately believed that the girl was telling the truth: She had no motive to lie. The defendant's lawyer did not even broach the topic nor did the prosecution. Yet that was critical to our deliberations. She had no motive to humiliate herself, to get on the stand and tell in detail what he did to her, unless she was telling the truth.

I felt that one of the people who testified knew the answers. That he maybe saw or heard something that could have helped... but he was barely questioned. If pressure was applied then I think he would have cracked. He said that he saw her coming out of the woods one time looking as if something were wrong, and he asked what was wrong and she said "Nothing." That was pretty much the only evidence we had in her favor, and it was revealed when the Defendant's Lawyer was questioning the witness he called.

I absolutely believe, based on what we were required to do by the law, came back with the right decision. It just does not make it any easier to know at the "gut level" that the girl was probably telling the truth. She had to open herself up to thirteen strangers about something completely personal and horrific and nothing was done... I just hope she does not believe coming forward was a mistake. I also hope, if it is true, that it gives any others he has harmed the courage to come forward.

If nothing else, I believe and hope that other members of her family are careful with their children when he is around.

[InternalDialogue]

8. Your dilemma is agonizing, but it's what makes our system strong.

We try to punish only those provably guilty, letting go all others, in the hopes that no innocent person will be wrongly punished. It's always difficult -- convict anyone who might be guilty, to ensure that the criminal is punished, or give the benefit of the doubt to all and prevent inappropriate punishment.

I hope, like you, that the victim doesn't feel that she did wrong in coming forward.

[Meldread]

10. I agree 100%

I feel that we did the right thing, and if I had to make the choice again I would vote the same. I don't feel guilty about the vote, I just feel... disheartened... that a young woman didn't see the justice that she deserved. However, I don't shoulder that burden on myself, but rather on the prosecutor who failed her spectacularly.

[undeterred]

12. Most cases are never prosecuted

There wasn't much more that could have been done. This type of thing does not lend itself well to our justice system.

I was the victim of an attempted assault in 1975 (stranger, outside, daytime) but I was rescued and my rescuers talked me into reporting it. We all became witnesses. Eventually the attacker was caught and it turned out there were other assaults. They prosecuted the two most serious cases (mine was the least) and used the other young women as character witnesses. It was a good strategy, although at the time you wonder. The offender had an alibi for both attacks- one was a rape of a 16 year old girl, and this was before the use of DNA technology so there was no proof. The other was attempted rape and assault with a deadly weapon.

It was so powerful to meet all the other "victims" and have my rescuers (male college students) there. Nobody was accused of lying, we were all mistaken. The jury didn't buy it.

I wasn't allowed in the courtroom, except for the closing arguments. I walked in while the assistant DA was talking and I sat next to a woman who was sobbing. Later I found out she was the rapist's mother. I don't know if she was sobbing because she knew he was a rapist or because she thought he was falsely accused. I didn't sit next to her on purpose. He was sentenced to two terms of 5 to 15 years, to be served consecutively.

After that I worked as a volunteer with rape and assault victims for 7 years in 2 different cities. I anticipated that I would be going to court with victims. But I never again did. Because there are so few arrests ever made. Because there are so few situations where the woman is considered a "reliable" witness. If there is alcohol, drugs, mental illness, homelessness, mental retardation or lots of other things involved, the woman is an inherently bad witness. The shame of it is, most of the time, rapists get off scot free.

Sorry for the rant, but there is no justice in this life for victims of molestation and sexual assault except on those rare occasions when it fits the legal definition, maybe 1 in 1000 times.

[Meldread]

17. Yes, I know.

I'm glad you were able to avoid being the victim of rape, and I would like to thank you for being a volunteer in your community. However, I don't think in this particular case it was the fault of the jury. I believe all of us WANTED to convict him of the crime. We all felt that he was guilty. We didn't know by how much and didn't have many details, but simply based on his defense and the lies told by those defending him, as well as lack of motive to lie on her part, we felt he was guilty. It's just that... we lacked evidence. The Prosecutor failed her. Had he produced a single individual who could even remotely collaborate her story he would have been convicted. A childhood friend who could testify that she seemed depressed, or maybe hinted around that something was wrong. Put her mother on the stand to testify that... a teacher... Hell he could have spoken to her and subpoenaed her cousins to come forward and testify AGAINST him. That would have been a slam-dunk.

Nothing. He gave us absolutely nothing to work with, and although the defense sucked unfortunately the burden of proof wasn't on their back but the back of the prosecution. The defense did a decent job of twisting her words around by leading her into saying things that were not in the detectives report. (The cousin comment among them.)

So after that we had to take the things she said with a grain of salt. Had the prosecution given us even one person, even if indirectly, to collaborate her story that man would be in prison right now. I have no doubt.

The sticking issue was we had to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. Without anyone to collaborate her story that left room for doubt. :(

[undeterred]

22. I know, its so sad

Its so easy to manipulate a child, but even if the child did tell someone its still one persons word against anothers. This happens to so many people. I have a friend who was molested by her father, and although her mother, at age 80, finally admitted that she knew about it, her older brother still uses the word alleged. It tears at the whole family forever.

[rug]

14. You did the right thing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. I had to do a 'not guilty' in a child sex abise case, as well.

Though in my case, it seemed pretty clear cut that the guy wasn't a molester and that his ex-wife (who had custody of the child the whole time) was just a vicious lying gutter trash bitch who made it all up. The one case that me feeling bad was a woman hurt at her workplace and she was suing - but sadly, her lawyer wasn't very good, the company hired a real crackerjack and some excellent expert witnesses, and she admitted to some dumb things she had done that had us all saying, "Well, the company is probably at fault, but we really don't know because she violated safety protocols and hurt herself". (had her lawyer made a case about justice, that the company generally expected their employees to break those safety protocols, which I don't doubt they did, so that they would be more productive, she would have had a brilliant case).

Sounds like your case had two incompetent lawyers, which is too bad, especially for the girl. The kind of claim she's making sounds too excessive to be made up.

I feel your heart-wrenching - it is the beauty of our law that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" before we destroy someone's life, but it is not always emotionally easy to accept the rational. You had to let a more than likely child molester go free; I had to deny any compensation to a woman who was more than likely permanently injured by her employer's policies.

Life sucks sometimes.

[Meldread]

18. It's good to know someone else here has gone through a similar experience.

I still feel, actually more stronger than ever, that we have a great law system. Stepping back and looking at things from a wider picture, outside a single case, having to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt is perhaps the fundamental most important part of our justice system. Even though I think one bad guy got away, how many innocent men and women will be protected even when they are viewed suspiciously?

I can't be 100% certain he is guilty of the crime. If I were 100% sure the story would be different. I'm just 80% sure he is guilty, and that remaining 20% was reasonable doubt.

It seemed bizarre for her to make it up which is fundamentally why I believed her. If she really wanted to get him then all she would have to say is that it happened once. On the face of it, that sounds more believable. However, to get up there and say it happened OVER 30 times but NO MORE THAN 50? That's insane. Fundamentally she had no reason to lie, and a case that I made in the jury room when we were debating both sides was basically - what motive did she have to lie? She didn't have one. I pointed out that if I were the defense lawyer the first thing I would do would be to come up with an explanation as to why the accusation has been made. Why is she saying this if it isn't true? It was more or less the great unspoken question throughout the trial, as neither the prosecution nor the defense even attempted to give an answer.

I mean I can look past the guy lying. I would be tempted to lie if I were innocent of the same charges. I'd be tempted to say almost anything to look innocent, but some of the things that were said and most importantly NOT SAID is really insane.

...also like I pointed out the defense lawyer began his closing argument basically by saying, "I don't know what to say to you." I couldn't believe it. That was probably the most dumb thing said throughout the entire trial, barring the fact that the defense is also the one who brought up the whole impotence thing but then produced no evidence of it.

[cwydro]

16. sounds much worse than the one I had to deal with.

You followed the instructions and that is what you are supposed to do. It's difficult, I know.

An armed robbery case was what I had. But the thing was...they never found the weapon. And the main witness (the robbed one) who worked at a motel (which was the one robbed) had a previous relationship with the defendant. To me it looked like a setup gone bad. She and he were hoping to make some bucks.

Worse thing, he was black and she was white and let me tell you, there was not ONE black person on that jury. At any rate, we had no choice to just find robbery without a weapon or anything...that was it. Armed robbery or not guilty. We knew he did something, but hell, we followed the letter of the law. There was NO weapon. But it went on for HOURS, because they all wanted to convict him. Another woman and I refused to vote guilty. Killed me because I KNEW he WAS guilty of something. But there you are; we did what we were supposed to. Not a fun experience. Coupla good old boys in there ready for a lynching. In the end it was a hung jury.

The awful thing is that after the case, some of the jerks came up and told us that the D.A. had told them if we only knew of his priors we would have not done what we did.

Hey. WTF? .:shrug: I hope I never have to serve again,

Take it easy and don't beat yourself up.

[Meldread]

19. Good for you sticking to your guns.

That was one thing I promised myself I would do when I got my summons. I told myself that if I believed the person was either guilty or innocent that I would not allow myself to be intimidated or pressured into a position that I believed was fundamentally wrong.

However, the jury was completely lopsided toward the prosecution just the same. Almost all of the jury members were women, who would have more emotionally "sympathized" toward a victim than a jury of all men.

I think the reason I feel so personal about it is because I knew the girl. Had I known what I knew before the case started I probably would have asked to have not been on the jury for possible bias. I was actually riding on the bus with her, sitting just a few seats behind her, hanging out with her sister, as she was being taken to her grandmothers house and these things were happening. That didn't play a factor in my decisions because I set that aside, but fundamentally I can't help but reflect back on that time. I haven't seen her or her sister since that time but they both look exactly the same nearly eight or nine years later. I can't help but reflecting back and trying to think, "Were there signs? Was there something that I missed?"

Of course, I can only imagine how her parents feel. Regardless of the truth, I have little doubt that they believe their daughter, so no matter what happened it was painful. I also feel horrible for her extended family. Putting myself in the girls shoes, I can almost feel myself wondering if coming forward was even worth it... since my family has been torn a part. What if remaining silent would have been better in the long run?

I wanted to approach the family after it was all over and explain to them why we decided what we did, but I figured that it probably was not appropriate. They did not approach me or any of the other members of the jury, so I didn't make the attempt. I just wish there was some way I could have let her know that she did the right thing, and that we believed her it was just the fact that with no evidence we could not convict. I do not want her doubting that she did the right thing, because in the end she might have saved another family member from having to endure what she endured. Everyone will be watching him with a close eye.

[Zoigal]

20. Sat on a similar case..

Due to lack of evidence, witnesses,etc we came up with a "not guilty"
verdict even though most of us were convinced the person being prosecuted
was guilty. Still haunts me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. I think you did what you had to do under the letter of the law and you shouldn't feel guilty

However - and please, Meldread, I certainly do not think you are at fault for anything at all, indeed, you did what the system required of you so I mean this in no way to reflect on you or your jury - but I think your case is prime evidence that our justice system is very flawed. I just can't reconcile what I've read here and still believe, as has been posted several times in this thread, that this is somehow "evidence" that our justice system "works" and that it's somehow "better" for this poor abused girl to be denied justice because some hypothetical innocent defendant might be acquitted.

Even if this girl's abuser had been convicted, she will face psychological trauma and scars for the rest of her life. But now, his acquittal will only deepen her wounds - it will give ammunition to nasty family members and complete strangers to call her a liar, and worse, a pedophile walks free to possibly abuse and molest and ruin the lives of other children. I do not blame you at ALL - as you said, the prosecutor failed her and you really weren't given any legally valid reason to convict, which is entirely out of your hands. But it wasn't just the prosecutor - the justice system in general failed her, as it so often fails victims of sexual assault, rape, and battery.

Our justice system is built with the rights of the accused - not the victims - in mind, and in cases of rape, abuse, and molestation where there are seldom if ever witnesses or physical evidence, the justice system almost ALWAYS fails. I personally find this an unacceptable price to pay. The United States has an exponentially higher rate of rape and pedophilia than other Western nations, and I think that's due in large part to the sad reality that our justice system protects rapists and pedophiles by making the bar for their conviction nearly impossible, so these utterly evil monsters can rape and molest with near impunity, knowing that the chances are very slim that they'll ever be brought to justice. It's truly tragic and I'm sorry you had to witness it firsthand. :(

[Book Lover]

23. I can't go with the flow of my fellow DUers' posts

It sounds like you and the other jurors did not really have any reasonable doubts (please tell me if I am misinterpreting you); there was simply a lack of physical evidence, stacked up against an abundance of verbal evidence, some of which coming from the accused was demonstrated to be lies. If that is the case, then no matter what the prosecutor's flaws were in the case, your jury should have returned a guilty verdict.

Easy for me, sitting miles and miles away in my comfy office, to say this, but that's how I honestly feel. I am sorry for everyone involved, including you and your fellow jurors.

[huskerlaw]

24. That's horrible.

You're right, from a legal perspective, you did all that you could. If he goes on to commit another crime, it's not your fault, it's the prosecutor's.

I know that doesn't make you feel any better, but from your account, you did the right thing.

[treestar]

25. I don't think it's fair to blame the prosecutor

How are we to know whether there even was any other evidence? We have no idea what the prosecutor did with that case. There could have been all sorts of difficulties and if there were no other witnesses, there is nothing else.

Also you're saying this guy is not proved guilty but then assuming he is guilty. There is something about merely being charged with this sort of thing that makes the person seem guilty. But if the proof is not there, there is no reason to talk about him as if he's guilty.

[Roon]

26. I sat on a jury for a stabbing/assault case

The young woman that stabbed the other young woman probability was guilty. But the DA couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So we voted not guilty.