Hang the jury!

Well, in the end, we the jury found ourselves in a deadlock. Very frustrating, but we knew there was no more means of deliberating ourselves into concensus, so we let the judge know and ended the thing.

The defendent was accused of soliciting an undercover sheriff's deputy who was posing as a hooker in a sting operation. Another charge of loitering with intent, was something we'd reached concensus on much earlier - we found not guilty because we didn't think the D.A. had made her case. But hoo boy, did the 12 of us go round and round about the other charge. The defense (consisting of a student attorney and her mentor - really!) tried to make the case that, because the guy didn't specifically say the word 'yes', didn't give the hooker any money, and walked into the motel bathroom as soon as they were in the room, he never actually intended to go through with it.

Most of us thought the guy's actions of conversing about sex for money, driving to the hotel, meeting the woman he acknowledged he knew was a hooker (his testimony), and walking with her to her room, discussing money en route, pr-r-retty much constituted an implicit agreement. But one juror really stuck to his guns and said without more proof, he saw reasonable doubt.

I could respect the difference of opinion as far as that went. But the juror also wanted to send a message with his 'not guilty' vote that prosti tution sting ops on the whole constitute entrapment, and should be illegal. Grr-rr-r. To me, that was such a misguided response that I'm afraid I got pretty testy with him for a few minutes. I said, you're on a soapbox; you can't change the law using this one case, and you shouldn't try. I mean, philosophically, I don't believe prost itution should be illegal in the first place. But it is, and we all know it, and this guy knew it - and we have to determine his guilt within the confines of the law. If I can do it, sir, you can too!

We deliberated for hours, and did as careful a job as we could. But neither faction could convince the other, in the end. So we wound up being a hung jury. Frustrating to have that happen, after the week's investment of time and attention.

Hey, at least I have a free afternoon now, w00t! I think I'll start some laundry and read my Price of Government textbook.

Comments

[Anthony]

Back in the Summer of 1988 I was working a long work assignment for the Yale Drama School tech people. It was a very gritty up-early, tear-things-down sweat-a-lot job (but I did earn the respect fo the techies at the YSD and was given the singular honor of beibng named an "Honorary Techie' and given my own hardhat--alas lost some years ago--and was invited to the Annual Yale Tech Party). After work, I usually went home, did a little light reading and slept in my livingroom to catch the cross breezes without letting the lovely New Haven Street People (plus the transvestite hookers who patrolled my street from night 'til morn) know I had a window (even a barred one) open for perusal inside.
One morning about 4 or so I woke up and heard some voices out on the street. A very bored hooker was telling the john du jour "you wanna go round the world it'll cost you 45 bucks" (NOT a bargain if you were able to see what world you going aorund, believe you me). Looking back on the experience in light of Pam's stunning foray into the justice system one wonders: would that have been enough to convict both/either hooker and john if the transaction had been busted by the police...?
Let's hear your opinions!

[pam]

Our jury instructions said that to find a john guilty, the evidence had to show a) the john had agreed to the transaction, and that b) he'd taken the next step to sealing the deal. Just discussing a trip around the world wouldn't cut it. He'd have to be caught getting on board the cruise ship with the activities director. Heh.

[Jo]

How interesting! And somewhat frustrating, I bet. "Yeah, um, I was just sort of pretending to talk about partying... yeah... that's it..."

[db]

My trial was a civil jury. Our plaintiff and cross-plaintiff resided in an island town just across the estuary from Oakland. They had a dispute over a shared driveway. Both sides were unappealing -- bascially, we got to hear about their years' of yelling at and harassing each other for atrocities like parking too close to the center of the driveway. For this, twelve other citizens and I gave up the better part of three weeks to try to sort things out (the plaintiff wanted damages for harassment; the cross-plaintiff wanted the plaintiff to pay for a heart condition allegedly worsened by stress from the ongoing disagreement). I think everyone on the jury was pretty peeved about the case by the end, despite the dramatic photo evidence and a visit to the scene of the crimes. In the end, we tried to figure out something that would discourage both parties from coming back to court -- we awarded $1,000 to the plaintiff and $0 to the cross-plaintiff. Of course, all that did was make them mad, as their attorneys told the jurors who stayed behind to talk to them afterward.

The punch line was that neither party was paying a cent for the litigation, the entire bill being borne by State Farm, which insured both. One of the lawyers told us that the company had spent more than $100,000 on the case through the end of our trial. In case you're wondering where your premiums go.