A Jury Of Your Peers?

“’The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or “unintended.”’  Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it.”
(Rob Norton)

 
I recently had the privilege of observing a trial held in Oakland County.  The case was a serious matter:  the driver of a vehicle making a left-hand turn was charged with the subsequent death of a passenger in another vehicle, after that other vehicle collided with theirs in a residential intersection.

The driver who ran his car into the other vehicle was elderly, the driver making the left-hand turn had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.  On the surface, it was a case where two people who should not have been driving crossed paths with tragic results and one where alcohol was immediately presumed to be the blaming factor.

But as in the Gary Davis case and, as with most of life, things are not always what they first appear to be.

As witnesses were called and testimony presented, it became more and more evident that the matter was not cut and dried.  Indeed, the old adage “Speed kills” came to mind as both common sense and physics pointed out that the force required to hit another vehicle and not only reverse its natural trajectory but to also roll it and push it many feet past the point of impact ought to be enough force to cause passenger restraint systems to engage.  Such failure to engage was testified to be the source of injuries severe enough to subsequently cause the passenger’s death.

But while all the myriad details of the case are fascinating, what has put my proverbial panties in a wad was not only the verdict of guilty of OUIL causing death and injury rather than giving the driver turning left a DUI or convicting on a lesser charge of negligent homicide but the way in which it was decided.

Throughout the trial, several jurors displayed a propensity to nap while the prosecution was on direct examination of its witnesses.  Certainly technical Q&A, as was required in this particular case, can become tedious, however, the jury had indicated to the judge more than once that they did not want to be tied up for even a whole day with a trial.  Upon learning they would be returning on a Monday for deliberations on what would be almost two weeks of testimony, many were visibly displeased.

After being given their instructions, the jury took barely 1 ½ hours to find the defendant guilty as charged.  After they were thanked and dismissed for the final time, the judge stated to those in the courtroom that they were “shocked and dismayed” at the verdict.  Later questioning of the jurors by the judge and attorneys found that they had decided to dismiss the validity of ALL expert testimony – including testimony from police officers, medical doctors, and accident reconstructionists – and dismiss the lion’s share of evidence to simply conclude that a drunk driver turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle that “might have been going a little too fast”.

Everyone has a “bullshit radar”, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, and this is where mine went off.  It is obvious that the jury neither listened to the instructions they were given, nor did they take their duty with any degree of seriousness.  Justice may be blind, but she isn’t deaf, dumb, and stupid.  Yet that is what a group of 12 people – a “jury of your peers” – would like us to believe.  We’ve all heard about cases where innocent people are sent to prison for crimes they did not commit; now I can better understand how such a thing can happen. 

And it makes me very, very angry.

The wisdom inherent in the structure of law created by our Founding Fathers came at a very high price and even today blood continues to be shed in its defense.  While no system is perfect, the checks and balances and the primary directive of “innocent until proven guilty” – and that guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt – is without a doubt a most precious gift given to insure the safety of the collective from tyranny and abuse.

Yet what I witnessed was 12 people who cared more about getting back to whatever it is that occupies their days than about the protection of the rights of all of their fellow citizens.  When asked to perform a duty that stems from a privilege bought with the currency of rivers of red blood, they whined, they complained, they ignored, they slept, and in a demonstration of the modern sound-bite, instant gratification era, they took the easy way out and made a snap judgment based primarily upon emotion.  Once called lynch mob mentality, this is the very thing our legal system was designed to prevent.

It is not only cause for dismay, it is shameful and it is a travesty.  

These 12 people are certainly not, in any way, a jury of my peers.  If you live in Oakland County, you’d better pray they are never yours.

Roseland Park Cemetery
Veterans of Foreign Wars section

On this Veterans Day, my heartfelt thanks go to those who have served,
to those who currently serve,
and to those who gave everything to protect the freedoms we enjoy.