Saturday, January 15, 2005

jury doodie, conclusion

in short, the guy was not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, guilty, and guilty. he deserved worse, but somehow I think his final uppence has yet to come.

the guy pushed his wife down a flight of stairs, and then stole her money and her car to buy crack. he broke a no-contact order of protection by writing a letter to his 12 year old daughter. on the scales of justice, the content of the letter is irrelevant, but it was hard to ignore the blatant threats and manipulating tone he conveyed. poor kid.

it breaks my heart to say it, but it came down to he said/she said, and both sides were crack-addled drunks so there wasn't a whole lot of credibility to fall back on. the prosecutor was only able to prove two of the five counts on the indictment.

I feel so dirty about it all.

here's something weird, though: I’m not as turned off by litigation as I thought I was going to be. the sucky thing about being on a jury is that it isn't your job to decide between "he did it" or "he didn't do it", but rather between "guilty" or "not guilty". if anything, this sunshine family adventure has shown me that if I’m ever going to be in a situation like this again, I’d rather be one of the lawyers. or the judge – this would also be preferable.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I bet the prosecutor would've been more persuasive if he sang the milkshake song...
- E