• Jury Duty Experience
• Rules for Civil Conversations
• A People's Voice on the American Jury System and the Twelve Angry Men Who Inspired It
|
JURY DELIBERATION • Jury Duty Experience • Rules for Civil Conversations • A People's Voice on the American Jury System and the Twelve Angry Men Who Inspired It |
A defendant is on trial in St. Clair County for the crime of burglary. A beauty shop was burglarized on Monday, October 21, 1985 at approximately 7 p.m. The trial date is April 14, 1986. The judge and attorneys question 36 prospective jurors and select 12 jurors and one alternate. The jurors selected were three black women, two white women, three black men and four white men. Their ages range from the mid-twenties to the mid-sixties. The occupations of the twelve jurors: Avon Lady, Practical Nurse, retired Railroad Worker, Bank Cashier, Civil Engineer, Housewife, Post Office Supervisor, High School Teacher, Railroad Employee, Emerson Electric Executive and one Unemployed.
The prosecutor, an assistant State's Attorney, is the first to give his opening statement in which he outlines his case against the defendant. He explains the purpose of his remarks is to give the jury an overall idea of how he will put the pieces of his case together to present an entire picture by the conclusion of the trial.
The defense attorney, a public defender, reminds the jury that she does not bear the burden of proving the defendant innocent because he is considered innocent throughout the trial unless the prosecution proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Both attorneys are low-key and unemotional in their presentations.
The prosecutor presents his case first. He questions six witnesses. Each of them is kept outside the courtroom and is called in one at a time. After the States Attorney's direct examination of a witness, the Defense cross-examines. The Prosecution is then allowed a redirect examination before the witness is excused.
Owner of the building. He testifies he was working in his apartment building next to the beauty shop which was rented to the woman who operated the shop. He went outside the building to get something when he saw feet going in through the window of the beauty shop. He yelled at the person but got no response. He ran next door and asked someone to call the police. He then ran back to the window but didn't see anyone. This all happened within five to ten minutes. From seeing the feet, he had the impression it was a young man who entered the building. He never saw the person's face. He testified it was just turning dark, like twilight, around 7 p.m.
Beauty Shop Owner. She testifies she was not present at the time of the break-in. She was called by the building owner and went to the shop to assess the condition of the shop and its contents. She testifies she was the last one to leave the shop on Saturday night and had not returned until she received the call about the break-in Monday night. She tells the court she normally straightens up before leaving the shop by wiping off the countertop and straightening her work area but couldn't be absolutely certain she had done so before leaving work on Saturday. She recognizes the defendant as someone who entered her shop shortly after school opened in the fall. He had entered the shop and stood by the front door while asking about the price of a haircut. He left after a short time. He had not been given permission to be in the building on the night of the burglary. When asked to describe the shop after the burglary, she said she found open doors, shelves and drawers pulled out and a coin box was tilted with 35-45 pennies missing.
Police Chief. He testifies he was driving to a store around 7 p.m. on October 21, 1985 when he saw the defendant running towards his home from the area of the beauty shop. The chief knew the defendant so he recognized him and knew where he lived. At the time he spotted the defendant, the chief was unaware of the burglary. He testifies one of his police officers contacted him at the bowling alley and informed him of the burglary. The chief told the officer he saw the defendant running in the area at about the time of the reported break-in.
Police Officer. He responded to a call about a break-in and arrived at the scene a minute or two after getting the call from the dispatcher. He discovered the front door open but no one was in the shop. He called the crime lab and waited to assist the lab technician in his examination of the crime scene. Later that night he called the police chief at his home to inform him of the burglary. The chief told him he saw the defendant running in the area of the burglary around the time it was being reported.
Lab Technician. He testifies he was called at home and asked to investigate the burglary. He arrived at the scene and discovered an open rear window, open cabinets and drawers. The shop was clean, no hair on the floor or countertops. He explained the process of dusting and lifting latent prints. He found no usable prints, only smudges, in the window area, drawers and front door. He lifted two latent palm prints from the owner's work area countertop.
Forensic Scientist. He provides information about his training for his work at the crime lab that employs him. His training includes a degree in biology, some graduate work in biology, and two FBI sessions for fingerprint reading. He is a member of state and national associations for forensic scientists. After a request by the prosecution and no objection by the defense, the judge allows the witness to be considered an expert witness. He then proceeds to explain the process of print analysis. He took the prints of the defendant on January 16, 1986. These prints were compared to the latent prints found the night of the burglary. He has a blown-up photo of the two prints and identifies 14 identical features of the prints. He positively identifies the print at the burglary to be that of the defendant. He says there is no set standard for positive ID but his personal standard is to match a set of prints by identifying eight matched features. He testifies he found 64 matched features of the prints he studied for this case.
The defense attorney calls only one witness, the defendant. The prosecution does not cross-examine the defendant.
Defendant. He doesn't remember where he was about 7 p.m. on October 21, 1985. He says he is usually home when it gets dark (around 7 p.m.) and is studying for his classes. He is 18 years old and a junior in high school who gets A's and B's in his classes. He testifies he has been in the beauty shop twice. The first time was he asked about the price of a haircut and if the lady had time to cut his hair. He was told the cost and informed she didn't have time to cut his hair. He returned a few weeks later but she didn't have time then either. He denies burglarizing the beauty shop.
The judge tells the jury the lawyers will present closing arguments. The prosecutor goes first and then is given a second chance to speak after the defense has given her closing argument. The judge explains the prosecutor is given the final word because he bears the burden of proof. He points out that both sides are given the same amount of time to speak even though the prosecutor speaks twice.
Prosecutor: The States Attorney goes through the facts presented by the testimony and exhibits. He identifies the evidence he believes shows the defendant was in the building without permission. He emphasizes the defendant is not being railroaded by the police or witnesses from the crime lab.
Defense: The defense finds it odd that the police didn't arrest or fingerprint the defendant until almost three months after the burglary. She thinks this is very strange since the police chief had seen the defendant jogging in the area on the night of the burglary. She also asks the jury to take with them the prints examined by the forensic scientist and study them to see if they're convinced the prints belong to the defendant. She again reminds the jury the defendant is not guilty unless all members believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judge instructs the jury by explaining what it is to consider during its deliberations. He instructs the jury to select a foreperson and then discuss the case. The judge instructs the jury to return one of two sheets of paper. One sheet says the jury finds the defendant guilty of burglary, the other says he is not guilty. Each juror must sign the sheet indicating agreement with the decision. The jurors are then told the state must have proven the defendant guilty of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judge lists the three finding necessary to support a conviction:
| Element | Evidence of Guilt | Reasonable Doubt |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant knowingly entered the building
|
 |
|
| Without permission
|
||
| With the intent to commit a theft
|
Your Vote on the Verdict [circle one]: Guilty Not Guilty