In the beginning, like most of us who have received one, I recoiled in horror when I saw the notification in the day's mail. I would have to report to the Nyack Village Hall (where I live) for jury duty. Whether I would actually have to actually serve on a jury was not yet decided. But, I knew that I would at least have to go through the process!
I was working full-time, so the prospect of having to donate my time for virtually no monetary compensation was not particularly appealing. After all, who was going to pay my rent?
Perhaps, there would be something in how I looked or what I may say during the selection process that would eliminate me from the jury pool while at the same time satisfying my obligation.
So, I reported to the Village Justice Court at the designation time and after checking in with the Court Clerk took a seat with about 15 others on the impossibly hard wooden benches that lined the courtroom.
On by one, we were called by the clerk to answer questions for the competing lawyers, some general like residence and livelihood, others more pointed, like attitudes towards race and the police.
Like the others (I trust!), I answered the questions earnestly and honestly, while at the same time continually hoping that there would be something in one of my answers to disqualify me.
Only 8 people would be ultimately chosen: 6 sitting jurors and 2 alternates.
And, guess who was one of the lucky ones: yours truly.
Fortunately, the trial would begin that very afternoon, and with luck, would be completed in a single day. The case involved a black man who had be arrested for disorderly conduct. The defendant, as well as the arresting officer (a white man), were to be the main and, if I remember correctly), only witnesses.
First, the presiding judge addressed us on what we might expect and how we were to interpret and then execute the law. This, according to the judge, was the single most important legal tenet to follow. We were not to decide the case on ANYTHING but the evidence. We were NOT to be swayed by any other emotion, i.e. whom we may or may not have liked - whether we ultimately support the police, etc. We were to rule exclusively on the evidence presented. Furthermore, the burden of proof lay completely with the State, i.e. the prosecution. The defense need not prove anything. The defendant was innocent until proven guilty, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
PROVEN, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
This theme was reinforced repeatedly by the trial judge. So, we took it to heart.
The prosecutor was a relatively young woman. The defense was headed by an equally youthful barrister. Both, fitting their positions, were well dressed and made an excellent appearance.
The prosecution presented its case first, arguing that the defendant willfully caused a public disturbance on the streets of Nyack and was arrested to prevent further such conduct.
The defense countered that the defendant and arresting officer had a contentious, near violent encounter in the past which created bad feelings between the two. The defense claimed that the arresting officer used that past experience as a catalyst to escalate the encounter in question to a point of confrontation and that the subsequence arrest was based on that prejudice.
As each jurist argued their case, it became more obvious that the defense's case was simply stronger. When the arresting officer testified, it became apparent, at least to me, that he exacerbated the encounter because of his prejudicial opinion of the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant was not without blemish. He, also, escalated the situation by acting with blatant disrespect for the policeman.
However, again in my opinion, that disrespect, even if personally repugnant, was not enough reason for that man to be arrested. Even ugly speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. The policeman should have been trained to deflect that type of behavior and not react to it with such aggression.
After the two sides rested their cases, the judge, as he had done regularly during the trial, admonished the jury that the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the State. The defendant MUST be found guilty, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT based solely on the evidence. If this is not the case, the defendant must be found NOT GUILTY of all charges.
The terminology used here is very clear and worthy of mention. The term applied is Not Guilty instead of Innocent. And, I believe that this has been done deliberately. The difference may be subtle but in this case most important. One may be seen as a legal matter, the other a moral one. In other words, the defendant may be legally free of the charges while at the same time carrying a moral guilt.
The eight of us then went to deliberate.
After a relatively brief discussion, it became apparent that we were in unanimous agreement: The defendant night not have been blameless but the State had not proved its case that his behavior was criminal. Therefore, he was found NOT GUILTY.
We notified the bailiff that we had reached our decision. He then brought us back into the courtroom where he notified all concerned parties. The judge rendered the decision - NOT GUILTY. He thanked us for our service to the spirit of justice and our community. He released the defendant and everyone went on their way with what seemed to me as no further malice.
The feeling that I had done something right, important, and just, came over me immediately. I had participated in something that the entire world strives for: an open, honest trial where justice prevailed due to the efforts of our fellow citizens, i.e. a jury of our peers, steered by a strong legal and moral code.
Now, most who know me understand that I am not a blind patriot. There are some things that this Country does very well and some, not so much. It was nice to be a part of an America that, when executed properly, is sublime, i.e. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.
It was also reassuring that our justice system, despite its great power and reach, is still slanted toward protecting the individual - again, as long as it is applied equally. PROVING quilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, is one of the most important tools in protecting ALL of us against and omnipotent State.
However, this ethos is not without its pitfalls.
Often, in its efforts to protect the innocent, the system can also release those at least morally guilty.
The trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin of Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of murdered 2 people and seriously wounding another during a night of racial unrest in that city, is a classic example.
Some things are not in question: Mr. Rittenhouse, who is from Illinois, was driven across state lines to Kenosha, armed with an AR-15 long rifle by his mother so that he could act as a sort of justice- loving vigilante. During his time there, he shot 3 people and killed 2 (who where unarmed).
What IS being debated is whether or not Mr. Rittenhouse acted in self defense.
Now, MOST rational people would argue that the fact that he went to such great lengths to be there with a high powered rifle is evidence of his intention to cause harm and should be enough for a conviction. However, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, that is not enough. Remember, The State must PROVE its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he acted solely with malice when he shot those men.
What the defense has done, at least in my mind, is create doubt in the minds of the jurors. According to Wisconsin LAW, a citizen, ANY citizen, while there, has a right to use any means necessary to protect himself if he feels his life is in danger. As seen in the videotapes of the event, the shooting victims appear to be attacking Rittenhouse in some way. We can say, "of course they were attacking him. He was rampaging with a weapon and shooting people. They were trying to stop him". However, we cannot KNOW with CERTAINTY what was in the shooter's head. Despite his original intentions, he had been knocked down and was being approached by others with apparently bad intent. Even a skateboard, which one of the victims was seemingly trying to use as a sort of bludgeon against Mr. Rittenhouse, can cause physical harm. Perhaps, at that moment, he was in fear for his life and acted accordingly, i.e. shooting. This may seem disproportionate but it is debatable.
Therefore, DOUBT has been created - the type of doubt that, under the law, can result in acquittal.
Yes, it sucks.
But, it IS the law and must be respected.
Otherwise, we are no better than Kyle Rittenhouse and his misguided supporters who see him as some sort of Law and Order cult hero instead of the little, lost boy turned murderer that he truly is.
And, remember:
“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”
Theodore Parker
No comments:
Post a Comment