So the other week I finished up being a juror. It was actually really neat. The best part was I got to miss our company's entire budget review process with pay. Sweet.
The worst part was that I couldn't discuss the trial the whole time, but I appreciated that more and more as the trial proceeded. I realize now that the purpose of having jury trials really is to judge the facts. I knew that before, but hearing the case, it really was clear that there were good arguments to be made for both sides, and it wouldn't be right for a deus ex machina ending where Judge Judy just points to the parties and says you win you lose.
Also many people at my company were asking what it was about, but I insisted that I couldn't give away any details. All I said was that the facts seemed very evenly balanced.
The accuser came to the stand, and outlined a brutal story of how she had been assaulted in her own home. In his opening remarks the defense attorney had outlined his side of the story which was that his client had been at home all night and seen there by three people.
It was hard to judge because there was DNA evidence. It was undeniable that the two had had sex recently. On the other hand I found her narrative difficult to believe. He had walked from his house at 4 AM raped her for 8 hours, then disappeared in the middle of town. Despite her screams for help no neighbors heard her, except for someone who knocked on her door at 4 AM during the rape then disappeared. Additionally she escaped from him at one point but was recaptured.
In the end, I looked through the evidence slowly. I had been leaning towards acquittal already. The only evidence there was for him being there that night was her testimony. On the other hand he had testimony from his two housemates that he had arrived home.
I really wanted to see some proof one way or the other. That was what was most interesting about the jury trial, because there is no proof. Either you believe one story or the other. On the one hand you had the DNA evidence they had sex, and her story. On the other you had his convict brother saying they had sex Thursday, as well as his story that he was out drinking and driving all night with his convicted felon friend while he was on probation.
Honestly I thought they were both bad people, and I said so in the jury room. They said I shouldn't judge, but I thought that was pretty hypocritical seeing as how we had each been selected to sit in judgement. Kind of the point don'cha think?
The rest of the jury was already doubtful enough to walk out with a verdict, but I wanted to look things over. Ultimately we deliberated for about 2 hours, and I finally got the last doubt I need from the phone records. See one of the big contentions at the trial was that he had been playing with her phone during the rapes, which explained why many calls (of an admittedly short nature) had been logged during those hours. Of course there were three intermissions long enough for rapes to have been committed (I would only have needed 5 minutes). What decided it was that his phone was offline for a 5 hour period, and hers was offline for a five hour period, but the two five hour periods were two hours offset from eachother. That was enough to raise doubt in my mind that they were being operated by one person the entire time. It just didn't make sense. Not that the story was strong enough to convict on, but just nothing added up.
So we found innocent, and the dude bawled, which was not surprising seeing as he was going to go up for 20 to life, I later heard. Worst of all I can't go to my favorite gas station because that's where she works. I guess we all came out losers in the end.
Except for me. I got $100.00. Sweet.
