The subtle bits
A fellow female juror suggested she should be jury fore-person. She positioned herself at end of table and had a very nice outfit on. I commented as such and she remarked, it's my best. She brought peanut M&Ms to share with fellow jurors. We agreed as to her being fore-person.
The initial vote
At approximately noon 12/4, after 12/2 being jury selection and 12/3 being evidence and testimony, and after closing arguments by attorneys for prosecution, defense and prosecution again, after about 20 minutes of discussion, first vote in jury was 9-3 not guilty - guilty. The three jurors voting guilty were the fore-person a female, and male seated to her right, as well as a female juror to her left.
The judge's charges, a court record of what we were to determine / judge upon, are called into dispute a number of times
Here's where it gets weird. A number of fellow jurors seemed upset at the Texas law definition of "sexual assault" in the judge's charge to the jury - they were apparently disturbed that physical assault was a requirement to the sexual assault charge being valid. They remarked "it shouldn't be".
Weird, we had to send multiple communications to the judge from jury about what "beyond a reasonable doubt" meant. They wanted it to be what they thought happened in their judgement of likelihood.
Meanwhile 3 fellow jurors move to guilty vote. Maybe they wanted to get out of the jury room in Austin on a beautiful day. We had to eat Jimmy John's subs for lunch. Hours go on.
Racism
I was so confused by fellow jurors saying illogical things, I finally had to ask: "is this about a black male accused and a white female accuser/victim". There was so much reasonable doubt to me, as a juror - I was confused. They were all "oh no, not at all."
The reasonable doubt was evident to me
Hung jury 6-6.
No comments:
Post a Comment