Perhaps I should back up a little. A while ago, I want to say it was end of August or early September, I received notification that I was in the selection pool for jury duty during the window of beginning of October-end of December. They required me to fill out a preliminary questionnaire stating availability and such. I filled it out as required, after which they said they would notify me further as needed. It was my first time being summoned in Utah, so I wasn't too sure how everything would proceed. I did get summoned in Virginia once while I was at school in Idaho, but since I was out-of-state, Mom just got me excused somehow so it didn't really effect me at all. I asked around, but no one had much insight into how Utah operates.
About a week before I was to report, I received an official summons with the date, time, address, and an FAQ brochure. I was kind of nervous about it, but felt like they provided enough info to allay my worries a bit. In the week leading up to my appearance, I was torn about what to root for. Theoretically, I was happy enough to serve on a jury. It's an important part of our republican system and I was perfectly willing to do my duty. Additionally, I thought it would be interesting to see the justice system in action. On the other hand, I knew it would be inconvenient for me to be absent from work for any extended period since there really isn't anyone who could really do my job in my absence. The timing of the summons exacerbated the problem. I was summoned to appear on the first day school was back in session after Fall Break. Because the Resource Library I manage had been closed to families for a full week, I knew from experience that there would be quite a few parents who would want to come in. Plus, Halloweek is always fun and I didn't really want to sacrifice participating in the festivities with the students.
With the competing hopes to be chosen and not chosen for the jury swirling, I reported to the court here in American Fork bright and early Monday morning. Upon getting to the appropriate courtroom, I was given my juror number, 31, by the bailiff and assigned a seat in the peanut gallery area with all the other potential candidates. We were all given another questionnaire to fill out with more detailed questions about our preferences and such. As I filled it out, I was a little torn about how to present myself. There were plenty of answers I could honestly give that might tip the scales one way or the other. One of the questions was along the lines of what shows or programs do you typically watch or read. For that question, I chose a few innocuous shows I enjoy like Star Trek, but I also listed listening to several Daily Wire podcasts, which I thought might cause someone to dismiss me. They also asked about what organizations you participate in, so of course I listed the church for that. Additionally, they asked me to list my most life-changing experience, so I mentioned my mission. I figured those answers might also potentially knock me out.
As people finished off their questionnaires, the bailiff played a video from the state about serving as a juror. It was mostly a PR type piece, but it was still reasonably interesting. Soon after, the lawyers and the defendant entered the courtroom. Right away, I noticed that we had team blue verses team tan going on. As time went on, it became clear that all the people wearing blue suits were on the defense while all the tan suited people were the prosecution. It turns out the defense always sits on the far side from the jury box, but I didn't know that at the time, so I had to find out from context who was who.
A few minutes later, our judge entered the courtroom. It ended up that we were dealing with Judge Roger Griffin of the 10th district circuit. I found him very personable and informative from the beginning. He explained more about how judges are selected, which was quite interesting. They have to go through a process of interviewing with both the governor and the state congress. After that, they are voted on by both groups, which determines if they are seated to the bench. Then there is a trial period of a couple years, after which they can be thrown out if they don't meet certain qualifications or are voted down. After that, they would have to be impeached to remove them.
After Judge Griffin described all that process to us, he went on to do a role call of everyone that was supposed to be in attendance. There were about 4 people who were not there. The Judge explained that those who didn't report as required would be summoned to a hearing wherein the Judge had the discretion to assess fines up to $1000 or up to 30 days in prison. He could also do a combination of both things depending on how they justified their absence. Next Judge Griffin asked if anyone knew parties listed by the lawyers on both sides. The parties listed included all the witnesses and all the people associated with all the firms involved. The prosecuting attorney came from a large firm, so it took him awhile to list everyone, but despite the defense having two separate lawyers, both their firms were quite small, with the female lawyer being a solo practice, in fact. It turned out that there was one potential juror who had worked with someone at the prosecuting attorney's practice at one point, so that was noted before moving on.
Judge Griffin let us know that they would be conducting personal interviews with some candidates in chambers. They started out with just the first 4 or 5 jurors waiting in the courtroom while the rest of us were given permission to wait in the foyer area, which had more comfortable seats. Since I was quite a bit later in the line-up, I filed out with a bunch of others. I had brought my Kindle, of course, so I got busy reading. I knew I should be getting a better chunk done in the next book club book, Hillbilly Elegy. I figured court would give me a good shot at getting a move on that. That book deals with a fair amount of family dysfunction, which seem fairly on the nose since we had been told that the case involved a child abuse charge. I was able to get through a reasonable chunk, however, which was good. I noticed another girl perhaps a couple years younger than me also reading, though she had a rather a thick paperback. Couldn't see what it was, but I was happy to see there was someone else reading rather than just surfing on their phone or making small talk.
While we were waiting, there was a guy who passed us who explained that he had just gotten back into the country and found that he had the summons. He was late, but wondering how to proceed. We all directed him to the bailiff. Hopefully, his case is one where he will be excused rather than facing the fines or jail time!
After a while, the bailiff called for me to reenter the courtroom along with a few numbered near me. I waited for a bit. There were a few who came out from their interview and immediately gave up their numbered lanyard. We learned that there were a few who were quickly dismissed due to health concerns. Judge Griffin mentioned later that someone had gotten out of surgery just the day before, so he was definitely sent home quickly to recuperate!
Eventually, my number was called. All the lawyers plus the defendant were in chambers with the Judge, though he asked most of the questions, so I focused most of my attention on him. He asked about what grades I dealt with at the school first. Then, he asked me about my answer to a question that asked if I would trust the testimony of a police officer more than another witness. At first I had said no, but then I rethought it and changed my answer to yes partially because I thought it would look less favorable. When the judge asked about it, I explained that I felt ambivalent about the question because it was more likely that an officer would have empirical data, like breathalyzer results, to back up his or her statement than a regular witness. However, if there was no empirical difference between the two, I would judge them the same. One of the defensive attorneys asked me about my association with the church and whether my perception of cases involving alcohol would be colored by belief in the Word of Wisdom. I explained that I grew up in predominantly non-LDS areas, so I'm used to people living with different standards than I choose. That was their last question, and I was dismissed back to the courtroom.
Within a few moments of me getting back and without anyone else getting called back for an interview, everyone else came back from chambers too. All remaining candidates were also recalled from the foyer area. Judge Griffin explained that jurors had been selected and began announcing them, asking them to take their seats in the jury box. Jurors 1 and 2 were called. The next was 5. There were 2 in the teens called, though I can't remember their numbers specifically. Then there was juror 24. I knew that we were approaching my numbers, so my heart kind of tensed with anticipation of both being called and skipped over. In the final moments, I think I was hoping to be done, though. However, that was not to be. My number was called. I went to the end expecting a full 12 jurors to be called, but was surprised that after I was seated, all the remaining jurors were thanked and dismissed. I admit I felt a bit of envy as I watched everyone else file out. In the the foyer, I had seen someone pass with the lanyard for juror 46, so I believe there about 50 people in the general pool. That I should be one of the 7 selected, and in fact be the very last selected, seemed kind of unbelievable.
Once everyone else had filed out, the Judge read us a series of preliminary statements. The basic gist of them was that we shouldn't discuss with anyone what was happening with the case. That included texting and social media posts about what was going on. He explained that violating that protocol would likely lead to a mistrial, resulting in a lot of extra expense and time to select a new jury. The Judge also informed us that the case was slated to extend through Thursday evening. He explained the likely schedule of the trial, which included convening at 1:30 PM on Tuesday because the Judge had to complete a docket of other cases in the morning that day for another judge who was out of town. I liked the sound of that since it meant that I could work in the morning on that day and get things more squared away for the week, at least. Then we recessed for a lunch break.
When we got back, the trial began in earnest. The state prosecution began with their case. Their first witness was Brittney, the child involved in the case. Her testimony took the longest of all the witnesses and covered the full story most completely. I'll only give the main jist of it. Brittney's parents had been divorced for about a year as of May 2016 when the event took place. Despite the divorce, both parents and all the children were living together at the time. Additionally, the parents had good relationships with all the kids and were even working to reconcile with each other.
Just previous to the events, Brittney had been on a week-long trip to Moab for outdoor adventures with her school. She got back on a Friday and was pretty physically exhausted from the trip. The mother, Amy, had a plan to go visit her family in Las Vegas that weekend and everyone was invited, including Brittney and her ex-husband, Justin, the defendant. Brittney, however didn't feel like going right after her school trip and Justin also wasn't inclined to go. So Brittney, who was 15 at the time, was left in the care of her father, with whom she had a good relationship, while Amy left early Friday for Vegas with the rest of the kids.
Brittney had a habit of acting as chauffeur for her father as she had a learner's permit at the time. She enjoyed getting more chances to drive. Justin suggested going over to his business partner, Dan's house Friday night to hang out. Brittney wasn't super excited about the idea still being tired, but agreed to it. She was told Dan had a daughter her age she could hang with. When they got to Dan's, it turned out that the daughter Brittney's age wasn't home, so she spent most of the evening with a daughter a few years younger. The adults spent some time hanging out with the kids playing video games, making vinyl-printed t-shirts, etc. It was an okay time for a few hours, but then the adults went to have few beers together at about 10:00 PM. Brittney was ready to go home at that point, but the drinking part lasted until about midnight, at which point she and Justin went home without incident.
On Saturday, they slept in and took the day kind of easy. For dinner, Justin suggested that Brittney accompany him and Dan for dinner at a local restaurant. No alcohol was consumed at the restaurant. Afterwards, Justin again wanted to go back to Dan's house to hang out. Brittney was really not excited about the idea at that point especially considering that the previous night had drug on longer than she would have wanted. However, Justin was insistent that they wouldn't stay long and that she'd have a good time. Since they were sharing a car, Brittney reluctantly agreed.
At Dan's house on Saturday night, there were no other kids around. That left Brittney to sit around watching her Dad and others drink. At first, they just had some beers. At midnight, Dan and his wife went to bed telling everyone else they were welcome to crash in a spare room for the night, get a cab, or whatever. As the hours dragged on, Brittney repeatedly asked her dad if they could leave. Justin kept telling her they would in a few minutes. Over the next few hours, a lot of harder drinks like Jack Daniels were consumed. Conversation among the adults turned to Brittney's mom, Amy. They were not quite derogatory toward Amy, which made Brittney very uncomfortable. As the hours ticked by, there was also discussion about how Justin hadn't slept with anyone for awhile and two women present entertained the possibility of sleeping with him.
All this made Brittney very uncomfortable, and she went into the bathroom and cried for about 15 minutes. She knew she couldn't stay there forever, so she went out and asked her dad one more time if they could leave. Getting little response from him, she went out to the truck they came in together and called Amy. She and Amy discussed the situation and agreed that it would be best for Brittney to go home and get some sleep. Brittney had Justin's cell phone for some reason, but didn't feel comfortable going inside again to give it to him, so she left it on the front stoop where she thought he would be sure to see it. Then she drove home, got ready for bed, and fell asleep. She left the front door open so her Dad could get in, but locked her bedroom door.
She was awakened about an hour later by Justin pounding on her door yelling at her. He was yelling about how irresponsible she was to leave him. He yelled that he had to walk home because of her, etc, etc. During the tirade, Justin was gripping her upper arms very tightly while she used her hands to shield her face. The first exhibit from the prosecution was a picture of one of Brittney's arms with light, but noticeable bruising that did rather look like a hand print with distinct small bruises from fingers.
Justin demanded that Brittney give him her cell phone and iPad. She had to crawl onto her bed to grab her iPad from the bed stand on the opposite end of the room from her. When she gave it to her, he whacked her on the top of her head with it leaving a goose egg, though there was no documentation of this. Next, Justin dragged her off her bed and out of her room, leaving some redness on her arms, which was the next exhibit. Brittney then got up and was dragged into her sister's room by the elbow. Justin allegedly shoved her against the wall in that room and yelled at her more. There, he gave Brittney an ultimatum. She could either clean the entire house, including some mess in the kitchen from one of their dogs, or she could leave and never come back. Then he left to go find his phone on the friend's porch.
Brittney did go clean up the dog mess, but then decided she would simply leave. She went to her room and changed, packed a few things, and walked to her friend's house.
The door was answered by her friend's sister and Mom. The friend wasn't at home, but the sister and her parents were there to hear her story and try to help her. She showed them her injuries, and they called the police. All this happened at about 7:00 am Sunday. That covers Brittney's testimony. She was cross examined at length, most of which involved potential contradictions with her previous testimonies, of which there were quite a few. There was the original police report, hearing reports, reports to therapists, etc. The main points that came out in the cross examination were that she had never mentioned peeing her pants in the past and that she had previously related that she had received an open-handed slap in the altercation. There was also a long discussion about how much she had discussed the case with her mom. The implication was the the mom put her up to the whole thing.
Brittney's testimony lasted for all the first day and about half of the second day. In the middle, we had a break because Judge Griffin was filling in for another judge on vacation in the morning of the second day. That gave me a chance to enjoy at least a little of Halloweek at work. The hard part was that everyone was curious about case I was on, but of course I couldn't tell them anything beyond it being a criminal case. It was fun to see the kids in their Halloween costumes, however, and I was happy that I was able to help families on one of the days of the week I typically see more parents. At lunch, I went back to court.
After Brittney finished her testimony, the prosecution put Amy on the the stand. Her story was basically rehashing a few points from her daughter's testimony from a different perspective, namely that she recommended that Brittney drive home because she was concerned for her daughter's safety and emotional state. The cross examination for Amy was the most intensive of all the witnesses by far. The defense brought up that Amy moved out of the house the day after the event, allegedly taking a lot of the furniture and such with her. Apparently, Amy had previously lost a case in small claims court over this. Also, it was brought up that Amy filed for custody of all the kids right after the event. She explained that she was concerned for her children's safety. It was pretty much the only time that she was allowed to give an explanation for any of her actions, though she often asked if she could elaborate on some of her answers and was denied. In the midst of this testimony, we were dismissed to the jury room several times so the lawyers and the judge could discuss points of law. One of those recesses lasted for an hour to an hour and a half, and we were starting to wonder if they all went to lunch and forgot us.
That long break, in addition to the other shorter recesses along the way, gave me a chance to get to know the other jurors. The one I knew the least about was a computer designer for a company in Lehi. He seemed not especially inclined to talk, so we left it at that. The juror who was from the farthest distance came from Mapleton, which seemed weird to me. I don't know why people from that far south wouldn't get assigned to one of the Provo court cases which are on the same circuit. I guess they don't discern on that so much, so I'm glad I was assigned to appear at the court that was very close to me. It meant I had time to go home and make lunch each day and came in handy later on as well. Another juror was the wife of a semi-retired psychiatrist. She helped in his office over the years, and I had a pretty lengthy discussion with her after learning she grew up in Ammon right across from where the Speedy Mart is. She hadn't lived there for many years, but it was fun talking about the area which I also know well thanks to Grandma and Grandpa.
A different juror was probably a few years younger than me. I noticed her reading a thick book across from me in the hallway during jury selection, and I asked her about what she was reading. It turned out to be Anna Karenina, which has been on my list to read for a while, so we had a long discussion about Russian literature and other books which the other jurors chimed in on along the way. She is a yoga instructor, so that was a subject of discussion for a while as well. One of the other jurors told us about how he had been taking care of his father, who had been in a serious ATV accident earlier in the month. In fact, the doctors had discovered partway through recovery that father could have easily died of an aneurysm because a clot which was starting to progressively impact his vision hadn't been caught initially and could have easily impacted more vital and less noticeable systems. It was deemed pretty miraculous that it was caught in time.
The last juror didn't volunteer much about himself until everyone else had been covered and discussed to some extent. When I finally got around to asking him what he did, it turned out that he is a producer for the church film studio. Even more interesting, his current project is producing the Book of Mormon videos. He was just finishing off a few polishing shoots from the first season of videos, having recently returned from ocean shoots in Oregon. Apparently, the jury summons came at the right time for him since it's a slower time in their schedule. It was quite interesting talking to him. He gave us some behind-the-scenes details about the Book of Mormon videos. I haven't seen any of those yet, so I couldn't ask as many questions about that side as I might have liked, but I found out that he had also been the producer on the Addiction Recovery videos, which are my very favorite church-produced videos of all time thus far. I really appreciate how those videos illustrate the powerful influence of the atonement through engaging story-telling that really sucks you in, no matter who you are. He talked about how those videos presented an interesting challenge because the church had never done anything quite along those lines before. Even finding the people to share their stories was challenging. Since he's a film guy, I also asked him about his favorite movies, which led to a discussion about classic greats as well as the merit (or lack of merit, in my estimation) of film-making today. It was all quite interesting to me, so personally, I felt like getting to know the other jurors was a definite highlight of the whole experience. Part of that was due to the fact that we were in no way able to discuss the case while it was progressing, so our more personal discussions were naturally a lot more uplifting than what was going on in the courtroom.
After Amy was grilled for a long time, we moved on to testimony from the three members of the Thurston family who listened to Brittney's account Sunday morning. Their testimony didn't add much to the story, mostly just rehashing what had been said already. They did add to the story that there was an idea of the house being trashed in the incident, at least. It did come across that they were a very nice family and had gone out of their way to help.
The last witness from the prosecution was the most frustrating to me. It was the officer who had responded to the police call. His testimony did add some additional info. When he arrived on the scene, he first took Brittney's testimony. Then he went to try to secure Justin's testimony. He went outside the Thurston house to see a truck driving slowly past the house scouting it out. He made eye contact with Justin, who then pulled into a nearby driveway. The officer determined who Justin was and took his response to the accusation, which was in essence that nothing had happened and that he hadn't drunk alcohol since midnight on Saturday. The officer smelled a strong smell of alcohol on Justin, but never did a breathalyzer test despite the fact that Justin had been driving. When asked why he didn't do this, the officer responded that he "didn't want to add insult to injury." That was about the extent of what the officer related. In cross examination, the defense also asked if the officer had gone to take a look at the house where the incident occurred, which was answered no. Additionally, it was asked if the officer had ever gone to the house of the house of the friend hosting the party. The answer to that was also no. All of this was pretty frustrating, because the officer could have offered some empirical evidence about the event, but wasn't able to illuminate anything because it seemed like he didn't do his job very well.
All of this testimony spilled pretty well into the third day. At that point, the prosecution rested and we went to lunch. When we returned, the defense offered a few witnesses. First was Justin's friend, at whose house the party took place. He was a pretty entertaining witness in that he seemed pretty nervous about getting subpoenaed, and there were some funny exchanges between him and the Judge, who tried to put him at ease. This friend wasn't able to add much to the story, in my opinion, because he went to bed before anyone started drinking hard liquors and he wasn't present for any of the altercation between Justin and Brittney. Basically, his testimony just confirmed what had been presented earlier.
Justin's mother was the next witness. She had gone to see Brittney at the Thurstons on Sunday morning. Brittney had been sleeping, but the grandma asked for her to be woken up to talk to her. Brittney related the story again to the grandma. Apparently, the grandma asked Brittney to show her injuries and she testified that Brittney pointed to her upper lip, which wasn't where the cut was in the evidence presented. She also said Brittney showed her the injured elbow, but Grandma didn't see anything there. Two exhibits were then entered in which the grandma pointed out dryness around Brittney's lips from a chronic condition Brittney suffered from. Personally, I thought this evidence looked completely different from the exhibit presented by the prosecution. Having suffered lip dryness trouble myself since moving here, I know the difference between that sort of chronic condition and a cut. In cross examination, Grandma was asked if she talked to Justin before seeing Brittney, and she admitted that she did.
After the testimony of Justin's mother, the defense asked for a recess to determine how they would proceed, indicating they had other witnesses. We left and were gone for about 30 minutes before being recalled. At that point, the defense rested. This surprised me a bit, but my guess is that they were thinking to put Justin on the stand and decided against it. Then we got final arguments. In my opinion, the prosecuting attorney did a better job at it than the defense attorney. He seemed more confident in it than she was, and his presentation was more engaging, including some movie references and such along the way. After final arguments and a recess, we received final instructions from the Judge. I found these quite helpful. They included elements like legal definitions of child abuse detailed out point by point for us along with instructions on how to go about deliberation. There was another recess, then we were called back in one last time. The judge expressed appreciation for our attentiveness, then explained that there was an alternate among us. I knew this was a thing that was generally done, but hadn't thought much about it since the trial began. Once Judge Griffin indicated that none of us knew who the alternate was, I was sure it was me, having been the last juror selected. Turns out it was me. I was dismissed, but instructed to remain available and in contact until deliberation was over in case I was needed. I'd left my purse in the jury room, so I went back with everyone else but awkwardly left with little ado to avoid delaying or botching deliberation. On my way out, the bailiff asked if I was sad to miss out on deliberation, and I admitted I was overall happy about it, since I didn't relish making any decisions in this case.
I went home for a while and had a snack, but went back after about 30 minutes because the bailiff had told me that I was welcome to return to hear the verdict and I didn't want to miss it. My good friend Katie was having her birthday party that evening up North. I didn't want to be late for that, but I also wanted to see this case through to the end. I waited reading my book and watching the time. Right when I was starting to get antsy because the party time was approaching, we got notice the jury was returning. I sat in the back of the peanut gallery on the prosecution side since there were more people sitting over there and I sort of wanted to hide. It was a little surreal seeing the other jurors coming in and seeing them take seats in the box where I was used to being. I predicted that the movie juror would be selected as foreman, and was tickled to see that I had been right. That was pretty entertaining to me, though who knows what would have happened if I hadn't been dismissed. I was certainly the one who talked the most in the jury room until I was dismissed and had formed more connections with the others than anyone else had attempted, so it's possible I would have been selected for foreman, though this fellow had also struck me as a steady, reliable person, and he would have been my choice.
The verdict rendered was Not Guilty. I admit I felt a thrill as it was announced and a flash of disappointment followed by agreement. I started filling out of the room soon after to get to my party, but was caught by one of the folk on the prosecution side who thanked me for my service. I thought that was quite gracious of her all around considering. I was glad that I could be a detached, non-culpable observer in that moment. Had I helped render the verdict, I doubt I would be as warmly received.
All in all, it's hard to say where I would have fallen in deliberation. I definitely saw points on both sides, but in the end, that alone means that I probably would have fallen in with the rest of the jury. I would have had to look over the instructions we were given more thoroughly to be sure. I'm convinced that something happened that night, but I don't think it was proven satisfactorily that child abuse occurred. Perhaps it was just general parenting and some yelling, which though wrong, isn't a crime. My guess is that there was more to it than that, but there was definitely reasonable doubt in the case. Though the exhibits presented did indicate some injuries, visible, though slight, it does seem plausible that they might have occurred during the school vacation in Moab. Certainly I've been injured in similar outings in my time. If there had been more conclusive evidence, my reasonable concerns could have been resolved. Mostly, I blame the cop for the lack of that evidence. Documentation on the state of the house after the altercation would have been highly useful. If it was trashed, as had been reported, that would support Brittney's testimony pretty strongly. A definitive breathalyzer result would have also been very helpful. Additionally, the time displacement was detrimental. There were a number of discrepancies in testimony, like Brittney reporting an open-handed slap in her police statement, but not remembering it in the trial. It's understandable that memory fades, but things along those lines I feel like I would remember. Overall, I think it was very wise of the defense not to have Justin testify. Since he was the only person besides Brittney involved in the actual fight, he would have opened himself up for trip-ups had he testified and been cross examined.
Our justice system is an interesting thing. It does allow wrongdoers to go scot-free periodically, but it also protects us all from unjust punishments and the long arm of the law. I found it very interesting to participate in this trial and would definitely be open to doing it again sometime. Not sure why people try to get out of jury duty so often because it's actually kind of awesome!
No comments:
Post a Comment