Disclaimer: This case has been completed and the jury released from the judge's admonition not to discuss the case.
Overnight the courtroom had been rearranged. The 6 chairs for the alternate jurors had been removed and two set up on a platform by the side of the jury box. A 4 foot ramp had been placed next to the jury box so that though I still wouldn't be in the jury box, I could be raised up a step and feel more like part of the jury.
To begin the trial, the Judge read us a Statement of Information. This is pretty much what it says it is, a statement about the time, date, and overall circumstances of the case before us. We learned that the case revolved around an alleged automobile chase of the defendant by a CHP officer. Because of the number of traffic infractions, the People (prosecution) were asking for a felony conviction of "willful and wanton disregard for the safety of people and property". There was also a lesser, misdemeanor charge of evading a police officer which we could find the defendant guilty if the prosecution hadn't proven the greater charge.
Next the prosecution again summarized the facts of the case and an outline of how she expectedto present it. Her statement is not to be considered evidence and my in fact be untrue. The defense then has the same privilege. I found it difficult not to hear the statements as truth although somehow it was easier to discount the defense than the prosecution.
Then the fun began. I was very impressed with the people's case. The Assistant DA presented the evidence logically, in order, and comprehensively. At that point there was no doubt in my mind. She had laid out what evidence was needed to establish the facts which would meet the definition of the felony reckless driving charge. Then by interviewing the CHP officer who had made the arrest, she established all the necessary facts.
As the defense began, I tried not to hold it against him that he appeared less prepared, poorly organized, and seemingly random. It wasn't really a surprise since he had warned us in voir dire that his presentation might not be as organized as the prosecution. He even warned us that his cross examination of witnesses could be pretty harsh. What he didn't warn us was that they might be nonsense or irrelevant. As the case progressed, I began to wonder if the defense attorney was really inept or simply wanted to give us that impression. Sort of "dumb like a fox". Later I was to find out that I wasn't the only one with such questions. The defense attorney also conceded that the defendant was guilty of the misdemeanor charge. It felt like he had tried to plea bargain and was still trying after the prosecutor had refused to go along.
The defense attorney attempted to raise questions in our minds about the officer's ability to judge the speed or another vehicle or even tell the truth on a report. For me it had the opposite effect because most of the criticisms, if met, would have made the case even stronger. But it was clearly a case of "he said - she said" The cross examination of the people's main witness, the arresting CHP officer, took longer than his original interrogation but finally it was over. I felt great sympathy for the harrassed officer.
The people called one additional witness, the defendant's brother who was in the pickup truck as they were being chased by the cop. This brother is considered a hostile witness. The prosecutor established that even a hostile witness would present damaging testimony for the defendant. She also got him to explain how many felony and just how much trouble the defendant was in. The she rested her case. The defense, claiming no case had been made, did not present a case. It was late in the day so the judge called a recess.
No comments:
Post a Comment