The eight hour process of selection was ridiculously long and could have been streamlined to four hours with very minor tweaks and possibly two without losing integrity. I don't mind doing my civic duty, but they are the ones who asked me to serve and a more professional process would have been appreciated.
The first case was dismissed halfway through because the prosecution's key witness did not show up. It was for assault. Basically the case was about a guy who borrowed a car from his friend, and returned it to her a day late. When they met up at McDonalds she was pissed off and started getting in his face. From the video (and testimony) it looked like she pushed or slapped him and then he punched her and ran away. I was astonished that this made it to court. I think I would have found the defendant not guilty on the evidence I saw, but the case was dismissed and I did not have to make a decision.
The second case was an OUI charge, with the only real information being that a guy was "acting suspicious" outside a Wilton market. The police arrived and noticed he was drunk, the passenger side of his truck was recently damaged from running into something and the vehicle was parked at the market for about 10 minutes prior to their arrival.
Defendant story: He woke up (in Searsport) and decided to go to the Skowhegan Fair. He was having family trouble and thought the fair would help. He is a recovering alcoholic. He arrived at the fair around noon. While at the fair he visited the beer tent and had one or two beers. He then waited a few hours and decided to drive (say 3pm). While crossing a narrow bridge he scraped the side of his truck and damaged the mirror, he was also lost. The next town he happened upon was Wilton where he stopped at a market (approximately 6:00), bought a 375ml bottle of 100 proof vodka and began to drink. He then called a friend to pick him up and approached some strangers to see if they could direct his friend to where he was (since he was lost). His behavior was strange enough that someone called the police and they arrived around 6:10. At 6:30 back up was called to give an OUI field test. He claims he did not remember/say the incriminating things in the police report because he was drunk. At 7:15 he was taken to the station for a breathalyzer test which read 0.21. The large amount alcohol in his system was from the vodka he drank after he was parked.
Prosecution story: The first officer on the scene approached the suspect investigating a 'suspicious person' call. The officer identified the suspicious person as the defendant and upon questioning the defendant appeared nervous and illusive with his answers. The officer noticed an alcohol smell on the defendant and called for backup to give a field OUI. A second officer arrived and asked the defendant several times if he had anything to drink after he had parked his truck. The defendant said 'no'. The defendant stated he was in no condition to drive and was trying to get a ride home. The officers noted that the truck was damaged and that it was still cooling off from being driven. The officers found an empty vodka bottle in the backseat of the truck. The defendant failed the field OUI and was brought to the police station for further tests which he also failed and was charged with OUI.
What obviously happened: The guy woke up (in Searsport) and decided to go to the Skowhegan Fair. He was having family trouble and thought the fair would help. He arrived at the fair around noon. While at the fair he visited the beer tent and had a bunch of beers. He is a recovering alcoholic and fell off the wagon. He was so drunk that he could not find his way home back to Searsport when he left at 3pm. There is a good likelihood he bought the vodka at the Hannaford store across from the Skowhegan fair. While driving in his drunken haze he hit something. He realized he could get in trouble for hitting whatever he hit (and hopefully realized he was endangering his life and others) so he stopped at the next town (Wilton) where he parked at a market (approximately 6:00). He may or may not have bought the 375ml bottle of 100 proof vodka at that time, but in saying he did created doubt that he was DRIVING drunk (perhaps in 20 minutes he was able to pull over, assess his damaged vehicle, ask people for help, buy a bottle of vodka, and drink it). The police arrived and questioned him and he gave answers that he thought would keep him out of trouble, but in reality proved his guilt. After talking to a lawyer he changed his story so he would not have to go to jail.
The defendant story did not hold water for me because if he went into the store to buy vodka, why didn't he ask for directions from the clerk? Why was he calling his friend to pick him up before he started drinking? The damage to his truck that day seems like a very unlikely random coincidence. Why did he tell the officer he had nothing to drink after he had parked and then change his story after talking with his lawyer? Why didn't he inform the officer he had just downed a bottle of vodka in the parking lot when asked? Why did he wait four hours between his first drink at the fair and going on a bender in the parking lot as an alcoholic who just fell off the wagon? What sober person (while lost and smashing their truck) decides drinking vodka in a parking lot is a better choice than going home to get drunk?
Surprisingly, I was the only juror who thought he was guilty. After some deliberation I realized that proof could not be achieved because the prosecution did not address the vodka bottle appropriately... It was plausible. I caved.
The case makes me feel that bad that 11 out of 12 people lacked critical thinking skills and will believe a flimsy story by an individual over that of the local police. The kicker was that I was the foreman and had to deliver the verdict.
The second case was an OUI charge, with the only real information being that a guy was "acting suspicious" outside a Wilton market. The police arrived and noticed he was drunk, the passenger side of his truck was recently damaged from running into something and the vehicle was parked at the market for about 10 minutes prior to their arrival.
Defendant story: He woke up (in Searsport) and decided to go to the Skowhegan Fair. He was having family trouble and thought the fair would help. He is a recovering alcoholic. He arrived at the fair around noon. While at the fair he visited the beer tent and had one or two beers. He then waited a few hours and decided to drive (say 3pm). While crossing a narrow bridge he scraped the side of his truck and damaged the mirror, he was also lost. The next town he happened upon was Wilton where he stopped at a market (approximately 6:00), bought a 375ml bottle of 100 proof vodka and began to drink. He then called a friend to pick him up and approached some strangers to see if they could direct his friend to where he was (since he was lost). His behavior was strange enough that someone called the police and they arrived around 6:10. At 6:30 back up was called to give an OUI field test. He claims he did not remember/say the incriminating things in the police report because he was drunk. At 7:15 he was taken to the station for a breathalyzer test which read 0.21. The large amount alcohol in his system was from the vodka he drank after he was parked.
Prosecution story: The first officer on the scene approached the suspect investigating a 'suspicious person' call. The officer identified the suspicious person as the defendant and upon questioning the defendant appeared nervous and illusive with his answers. The officer noticed an alcohol smell on the defendant and called for backup to give a field OUI. A second officer arrived and asked the defendant several times if he had anything to drink after he had parked his truck. The defendant said 'no'. The defendant stated he was in no condition to drive and was trying to get a ride home. The officers noted that the truck was damaged and that it was still cooling off from being driven. The officers found an empty vodka bottle in the backseat of the truck. The defendant failed the field OUI and was brought to the police station for further tests which he also failed and was charged with OUI.
What obviously happened: The guy woke up (in Searsport) and decided to go to the Skowhegan Fair. He was having family trouble and thought the fair would help. He arrived at the fair around noon. While at the fair he visited the beer tent and had a bunch of beers. He is a recovering alcoholic and fell off the wagon. He was so drunk that he could not find his way home back to Searsport when he left at 3pm. There is a good likelihood he bought the vodka at the Hannaford store across from the Skowhegan fair. While driving in his drunken haze he hit something. He realized he could get in trouble for hitting whatever he hit (and hopefully realized he was endangering his life and others) so he stopped at the next town (Wilton) where he parked at a market (approximately 6:00). He may or may not have bought the 375ml bottle of 100 proof vodka at that time, but in saying he did created doubt that he was DRIVING drunk (perhaps in 20 minutes he was able to pull over, assess his damaged vehicle, ask people for help, buy a bottle of vodka, and drink it). The police arrived and questioned him and he gave answers that he thought would keep him out of trouble, but in reality proved his guilt. After talking to a lawyer he changed his story so he would not have to go to jail.
The defendant story did not hold water for me because if he went into the store to buy vodka, why didn't he ask for directions from the clerk? Why was he calling his friend to pick him up before he started drinking? The damage to his truck that day seems like a very unlikely random coincidence. Why did he tell the officer he had nothing to drink after he had parked and then change his story after talking with his lawyer? Why didn't he inform the officer he had just downed a bottle of vodka in the parking lot when asked? Why did he wait four hours between his first drink at the fair and going on a bender in the parking lot as an alcoholic who just fell off the wagon? What sober person (while lost and smashing their truck) decides drinking vodka in a parking lot is a better choice than going home to get drunk?
Surprisingly, I was the only juror who thought he was guilty. After some deliberation I realized that proof could not be achieved because the prosecution did not address the vodka bottle appropriately... It was plausible. I caved.
The case makes me feel that bad that 11 out of 12 people lacked critical thinking skills and will believe a flimsy story by an individual over that of the local police. The kicker was that I was the foreman and had to deliver the verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment