Day In Court - My First Time On Jury Duty

INTRODUCTION

I recently received a summons to jury duty in a local court and reported to the court as directed. The atmosphere in the court house was solemn, but friendly and court personnel were respectful and courteous. The judge went out of his way to explain how the court operated and tried to make prospective jurors feel at ease.  Jury selection was smooth and efficient, and I was selected from among about thirty prospective jurors to sit on a criminal case.   A man was accused of "Malicious Wounding" by attacking his girlfriend with a lethal weapon during an altercation. The case had the elements of a made-for-television trial. The prosecution didn't call the victim as a witness, didn't introduce the assault weapon into evidence, and presented very few details about the altercation and assault. The case relied mostly on a statement signed by the defendant the day after the assault and hospital records pertaining to the treatment of the victim after the attack.  In his opening statement, the prosecuting attorney referred to the defendant's signed statement as a confession. The defense didn't call the defendant to testify and presented no evidence, but contended that the defendant's signed statement was not a confession of guilt, but was simply a statement of what he remembered from the altercation.

MAIN TRIAL

In his opening argument, the prosecuting attorney said that his case was rock-solid because the defendant's signed confession and the hospital records showing the extent of the injuries to the victim proved Malicious Wounding. In his opening statement, the defense attorney argued that the statement signed by the defendant and the hospital records did not prove malicious wounding, beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't recall that the defense attorney (at that time) challenged the prosecution's claim that the defendant's signed statement was a confession.

Prosecution's Case

The first witness called by the prosecution was the detective who had interviewed the defendant the day after the incident. He said the defendant had spoken to him freely about the incident and alleged crime and had willingly written and signed the statement submitted into evidence. In the statement, the defendant claimed he had been using the alleged assault weapon earlier and was not mindful that it was still in his hand when he punched the victim. He also claimed that he didn't know until the next day that the victim had been injured. He said he thought the victim had simply left the premises. The defense attorney's cross examination of the witness was brief and produced nothing remarkable. The prosecution's next (final witness) was the police officer who had interviewed the victim at the hospital where she went for treatment. In the victim's statement to the officer, she said that after she was wounded, she had driven herself directly to the hospital for treatment. The officer testified that the victim was taken away for emergency treatment while he was interviewing her. The hospital records indicated a wound to the victim's back, serious enough to keep her out of work for five days, but which did not damage any bones or vital organs.

Defense's Case

The defense did not produce any evidence or call any witnesses.

Closing Arguments

The prosecuting attorney claimed that the defendant's signed statement, the statement by the victim, and the hospital records of the victim's treatment proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as charged. He emphasized that the defense had not refuted any of the prosecution's evidence and had produced no evidence of its own.

The defense attorney pointed out that the prosecutor's closing argument did not refer to the defendant's statement as a confession of guilt.  He obviously wanted the jury members to see the statement simply as a recounting of events as recalled by the defendant. He went on to point out that the prosecution had not called the victim to testify and had presented only scant details about events before, during, and after the altercation.

JURY DELIBERATION TO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE

The judge gave the jury the choices (crime levels) we had in deciding the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The verdict had to be unanimous; that is, all twelve of us had to agree on one of the choices to render a verdict. We had to decide guilt or innocence based on the evidence and testimony presented; however, both evidence and testimony were subject to our judgment as to whether they met a reasonable test of common sense and credibility. After a break for lunch, we were sequestered in the jury room and given copies of the evidence produced during the trial.  For a verdict we had to decide on one of the four choices below:

Malicious Wounding
Unlawful Wounding
Assault and Battery
Not Guilty

Even though most (maybe all) of us had not served on jury duty before, we selected a foreperson within a matter of minutes and began reviewing and discussing the evidence. The process was open and democratic, and each member freely expressed his or her view of the evidence and raised his or her concerns. It was soon clear that all jury members believed that the evidence supported a verdict, of at least, Unlawful Wounding. We did not accept the defendant's statement that he was not mindful of the fact that he had the knife in his hand when he punched the victim. We also doubted his statement that he had not known that he had wounded the victim until the next day. The first straw poll showed 7 or 8 jurors leaning toward Unlawful Wounding and 4 or 5 leaning toward Malicious Wounding. To get to a consensus, we had to dig deeper into the defendant's statement and the hospital records in order to infer the state of mind of the defendant at the time he attacked the victim. According to the defendant's statement, the victim had not come home for 24 hours, and we concluded that the defendant was upset when the victim came home.  In fact, the defendant admitted that he had started the altercation. Furthermore, the hospital records indicated that the attack caused serious injury to the victim. But the evidence did not inform us on several important issues: the length and intensity of the altercation, if there was a physical struggle before the attack with the weapon, if the victim tried to flee before the attack, whether it took place inside or outside the victim's house, or an exact description of the weapon and what had happened to it.

From a first reading of the definition of Malicious Wounding, it appeared that use of the weapon by the defendant automatically constituted Malicious Wounding. However, there was an important exception: if the attack was made in a fit of passion brought about by a fit of extreme anger or rage, the attack might not rise to the level of Malicious Wounding. The majority of jury members argued that the mitigating emotion existed and that the fact that there was no evidence that the defendant had struck the defendant more than once, could be construed that the attack was not malicious.  Those who had originally contended that the crime was Malicious Wounding eventually conceded that the evidence was not sufficient to rule out reasonable doubt. Thus the unanimous verdict was Unlawful Wounding. The jury was called back to the court room where this verdict was announced.

COURT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JURY DELIBERATION TO SET SENTENCE

After the verdict was announced, the judge asked the prosecution and defense attorneys if they had any additional evidence that might bear on our deliberations to set sentence. Neither side presented any new evidence, but each made a statement to the jury. The prosecuting attorney emphasized that the sentence should fit the crime and that other circumstances, like the defendant's age and health and whether he had a prior criminal record should not be considered in setting the sentence. The defense attorney emphasized almost the opposite, and mentioned the advanced age of the defendant and the fact that he had no prior criminal record.

The judge then instructed us on the choices we had in deciding what sentence to impose on the defendant for the crime for which he was convicted. The sentence had to be unanimous; that is, all twelve of us had to agree on one of the choices.

JURY DELIBERATION TO SET SENTENCE

The most severe penalty that we (the jury) could impose on the defendant was prison time of 1 - 5 years. We also noted that Virginia law would require that the defendant serve the entire term of the sentence. The other choices included jail sentences of no more than 12 months, a fine, or a combination of jail time and a fine. Some of the jurors had earlier conceded to the Unlawful Wounding verdict in deference to their reasonable doubts about Malicious Wounding and now felt that the sentence of 1 - 5 years should be the starting point for discussing setting punishment. Everyone agreed in fairly short order, and the discussion then focused on how many years the defendant should serve. The discussion was intense, at times, but always thoughtful and fair-minded. It finally became apparent that a compromise was required if we were to agree on how many years the defendant should serve. That compromise we agreed on was 30 months (2 1/2 years) which was halfway between the minimum of 1 year and the 4 years that some jurors believed appropriate. We were called back to the court room where our decision was announced. The judge thanked us for our service and told us we were free to go.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

My jury service was a civic duty, but it was also an opportunity to be a part of the American justice system, and the experience was interesting and educational. The judge ran the court in a respectful, yet friendly manner, and the trial proceeded on an orderly and professional course.   I believe each member of the jury took his or her duty seriously and was thoughtful and conscientious  during the deliberations and findings. We all finally agreed that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove Malicious Wounding, beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of us, myself included, wished that the prosecution had produced the victim and more evidence about the details of what had happened at the crime scene. The sentence of 30 months in prison which we agreed on as punishment was a compromise between those who believed 1 or 2 years was enough and those who believed 3 to 4 years was the right sentence.