Ok, it's over. Whew. ... and we deadlocked. 9 not guilty, 1 guilty and 1 mostly guilty unless he was the last one.
The history of this case was about a junkie guy who was trespassed from co-dependent wifes apartment complex who let him sleep in their van down the street. One day, after his enabling mom gives him some cash(June 2006), he hot wires the van and takes off with it. The distraught (and emotionally battered wife) calls the police and reports the van stolen. The day (in Sept 2006) of the van theft trial came he wouldn't cut a deal with the DA to go into inpatient drug treatment, so the trial was held over another day. That night on his prepaid calling card (note: recorded conversations and stored) he called his wife and berated her about possibly testifying against him.
Our case, was this. Witness tampering. The prosecutor was trying to convict him of 1st degree witness tampering, which required proof he made contact (admitted), that he tried to dissuade or coerce her testimony (which we all eventually agreed he did do), and that he did this by use of "force or threat of injury to persons or property" -- that last part was where the DA failed. There was no threat made during the phone call other than to dump the wife and run off with another women. There was no history of any domestic violence other than his verbal harangues and debasement of her.
The guy was a pretty despicable. We ended up as 11 jurors on the 2nd day, due to one person going home and doing his own research so he was dismissed and we continued. At the end there was one guy who still had no reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and another guy who felt he was guilty but would go with the majority.
I feel that the one guy held on so hard to guilty because he wanted to see the wife protected and the scum bag suffer. Unfortunately, that would not be justice. So now the DA can choose to try again if she wants, but really the case was way too thin.
The history of this case was about a junkie guy who was trespassed from co-dependent wifes apartment complex who let him sleep in their van down the street. One day, after his enabling mom gives him some cash(June 2006), he hot wires the van and takes off with it. The distraught (and emotionally battered wife) calls the police and reports the van stolen. The day (in Sept 2006) of the van theft trial came he wouldn't cut a deal with the DA to go into inpatient drug treatment, so the trial was held over another day. That night on his prepaid calling card (note: recorded conversations and stored) he called his wife and berated her about possibly testifying against him.
Our case, was this. Witness tampering. The prosecutor was trying to convict him of 1st degree witness tampering, which required proof he made contact (admitted), that he tried to dissuade or coerce her testimony (which we all eventually agreed he did do), and that he did this by use of "force or threat of injury to persons or property" -- that last part was where the DA failed. There was no threat made during the phone call other than to dump the wife and run off with another women. There was no history of any domestic violence other than his verbal harangues and debasement of her.
The guy was a pretty despicable. We ended up as 11 jurors on the 2nd day, due to one person going home and doing his own research so he was dismissed and we continued. At the end there was one guy who still had no reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and another guy who felt he was guilty but would go with the majority.
I feel that the one guy held on so hard to guilty because he wanted to see the wife protected and the scum bag suffer. Unfortunately, that would not be justice. So now the DA can choose to try again if she wants, but really the case was way too thin.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)