perry mason was never like this...

justice? part II

1:30 and the show began...the seven of us were sworn in as a jury and the defendant was introduced as a professional ( i was concerned that he might not accept me as a peer with abbie leering crazily from my tee shirt)...and the scales fell form my eyes...we were a jury in a misdemeanor court because the defendant had the means to hire counsel and counsel felt that the defendant would get a better break with a jury than with the judge...much easier to fool the laity with with a bunch of trite emotionalism and the proper ammount of legalese...it seems that in august of 2007 ( the wheels of justice grind slowly...a bailiff who was entering law school in the fall told me this was purposeful...things were done slowly and deliberately to minimize rash and hasty decisions...i didn't believe it then and i don't now...dockets full of specious lawsuits in a post-modern age of defered responsibility is more like it...but the bailiff was part of the system and like most of us probably not too objetive about things we are close to)the defendant shot and killed a neighbor's dog, alleging that the dead dog was mauling his...the owner of the dead dog and handful of eye witnesses took exception with that and the defendant was charged with cruelty to animals ( much was made of the word "beat" in this trial) and criminal mischief...both class a misdemeanors carrying fines and the possibility of up to a year in jail for each count...opening statments were rhetorical masterpieces...prosecutors set out to prove the defendant was stark raving mad with fear on the night of the shooting while the defense portrayed him as a loving son ( middle-aged and still living with mom? all sorts of bells whistles and red flags) and doting dog owner who had been victimized by a raging lone wolf of a golden retriever who was wandering the post-storm ( there had been a doozie and the power was out...a significant factor in all the ensuing confusion and disjointed testimony) chaos in a snarling neutered frenzy of blood-lust...i surmised the truth ( if, indeed, you can find that in a courtroom) lay somewhere between the two extremes..after the opening statments there was a recess so the parties could set up their displays, flow charts, graphs, aerial photographs, and dog obediance awards ( don't laugh...they used all that stuff and more) and figure out how they were going to pitch somethign so idiotic as a jury trial in misdemeanor court to some plebes off the street.

the defendant was charged with cruelty to animals and criminal mischief stemming from the shooting death of a golden retriever and was holding to a defense of necessity...the judge explained that the defense of necessity was comprised of a number of specific conditions:
1.) there was an emergency situation that required action.
2.) there was no reasonable alternative to the action taken.
3.) that the actor acted in good faith and belief that the action taken was the only thing to do.
4.) that the damge done by the act was equal to or less than the damage that the emergency would have done.
5.) that the actor believed their actions to be objectively reasonable.

the judge went on to explain that the burden of proof rested entirely on the prosecution...all the defense need do was show the existence of reasonable doubt (that phrase will be forever tainted for me...doubt...reasonable or otherwise...was what this whole clusterfuck was about in the end) of the prosecution's evidence to avoid conviction...conversely all the prosecution need do was to show that the defense did not adhere to ANY ONE of the five facets of the defense of necessity to disprove the defense and convict the defendant...the prosecution led off the opening arguments...without the rhetorical frills it boiled down to the fact, uncontested by the defense, that the defendant had shot the dog one time with a .380 semi-automatic pistol, killing it instantly...that the defendant made inconsistent statements to the police...and that the defendant's dog was uninjured by the attack all rendering the claim of defense of necssity unreasonable.

the defense opened by calling the police investigation incomplete...secondly they noted that the events in question occured at around 11:30 pm during a neighborhood wide power outage following a storm which made the testimony of the prosecution's eye witnesses suspect...they pointed out that the defendant's dog was restrained on his property with an approximately twenty-five foot long tether...the defense contended that the golden retriever was roaming the neighborhood freely in a aggressive state due to the sever weather and that the defendant shot the interloper to save his own dog's life.

with opening arguments out of the way thew prosecution began calling witnesses...they started with what i found to be the most damaging testimony against the defense...they called the defendant's one time friend and long time veterinarian to his dog to the stand..he stated that the defendant brought his dog to his office in august 2007 stating that his dog had been attacked the night before and that he wanted a careful examination for wounds conducted...the defendant's dog was taken to an examination room by the vet's assitant for a thorough check...the defendant had also brought the golden retriever's body along...the authorities would not dispose of it and the health department was demanding that it be tested for rabies (dispite the presence of a rabies vaccination tag on the dead dog's collar)..the vet removed the dead dog's head and prepared it for shipment to indianapolis...meanwhile the vet's assitant came back with the defendant's dog and said she had found no wounds anywhere on the dog...the defendant balked at this and insisted the vet himself examine the dog...the vet said he put the dog on an examining table and conducted a minute search for wounds discovering none...the defendant then angrily demanded that his dog be put on a broad spectrum anti-biotic as a prophylactic measure.

next the prosecution called the vet's assitant...she stated that the defendant reacted angrily to her assertion that his dog had no wounds and that when he and the vet did a second exam he was, "frantic to find some wounds."she was then asked about the status of the dead dog and she replied that he was killed by a gunshot to the head...at that point one of the prosecutors asked if,"...a gunshot wound was consistent with the sort of wound you would expect to see as a result of a dogfight?" no doubt he meant to bring out the point that there was no way the dog could have received a gunshot wound form anything other than a human...but no-one on the jury perceived it that way...the answer was so self-evident that the question came off as jaw-droppingly surreal...of course it wasn't consistent with wounds you'd expect from a dog fight...overcoming, but not masking her incedulity, the assitant answered with a simple "no"

that took us to 5:30 and the judge called an adjournment until 7:00 the next morning...our instructions were fairly lengthy..we were admonished not to talk to anyone about the case ( right) including fellow jurors...we were chosen because we were thought to be unbiased and unfamiliar with the case ( well...i was unbiased about the case but not he process...justice may not be a commodity for sale but wealth certainly changes the mechanisms by which it is dispensed...this was proof of that)we were not to watch any television reports on the case ( this made even the judge smile breifly) listen to radio reports, read newspapers, do research on the case on the internet or in library files...if anyone attempted to talk to us about the case we were to report it to a bailiff on our return the next day..we were admonished not to have any contact with the defendant, his counsel, or the prosecutors and report any attempt by them to speak to us...with that the bailiffs hustled us out of the courtroom, took our JUROR buttons and showed us the door before the judge recessed the rest of the room...friday would be a much longer day.