I do not expect this trial to last the 8 weeks estimated by Judge and council. In the first three days, a few of which were still dedicated to Jury selection, the evidence brought to light by the prosecution, in my eyes, is damning. I should start by saying that I am biased in this case, but I will try to represent the information and testimony fairly and in the most neutral way possible.
Monday: Jury selection, the formation of a trial.
Both the District Attorney Mr. Jeff Rosell (hereafter referred to as 'DA') and the Defense Attorney Tom Wallraff ('TW') used the full allotment of 6 minutes during each wave of Jury questioning. Anyone involved with Domestic Abuse, or having suffered the loss of a close one at the hands of another was excused. And I can understand why, neither the DA nor the Defense wants a Juror to be clouded by their past experience in regards to assaults, murders (as one Juror's brother in law had just been murdered), or anything that would automatically go to paint a Defendant in a murder case as guilty. However, there were MANY jurors that had been affected, either directly or indirectly, by assaults. And a Jury is suppose to be representative of one's peers. If many of your peers have experienced assaults, or the fallout of assaults on their loved ones, should this experience not be represented in a Jury?
Witnessing the Jury selection was eye opening, there is so much you can learn by watching the entire room and not just focusing on the one Juror that is being questioned at the time. Also being able to watch the strategies of both the DA and TW, not just in the questions they ask, but how they ask them, is something that will be hard to put on paper. Even more difficult is going to be explaining the emotions, ticks, and tells that are expressed by either the Attorney's or the Defendant. As an example, during the Jury Selection process, McClish would stand respectably, facing the door while standing in front of his table with his hands behind his back looking professional anytime the possible Jurors would enter or exit the room. More than once prospective Jurors were asked about the feeling they got from McClish. One woman said she was creeped out, and obviously she was excused (A great strategy if you ever want to get out of Jury duty I suppose). However many of the Jurors said that he looked respectable, approachable, or he 'looked like a nice enough guy.' McClish would flash a smile or smirk, maintain eye contact with the Jury as an acknowledgment. However, when the DA would mention Joanna Asha Veil (JAV) and her unborn child, McClish would immediately break eye contact with the Jury, staring explicitly at his desk, head bowed. In several instances I watched him fidget with his ring finger on his left hand, which is now empty after his divorce, using his right hand. This did not occur when his attorney was speaking, only when the DA was asking questions. The longest he did this was maybe 5 minutes on and off, but never less than a minute or two. He was visibly flustered while it occurred, obvious that he was bothered by the questions being asked, or the ones he knew were about to be - It was very easy to see and anticipate questioning lines from both the DA and TW as new waves of Jurors filtered in and out of the Jury box.
DA Rosell had many different questions for the Jurors, however these are the few that stood out to me, either because they are obviously important, or because of the degree to which he would repeat them to Juror after Juror (denoted by a ~ with my comments following **)
~Do you have a strong opinion, for or against, the use of Scientific Evidence.~
**It was clear that both the DA and TW did not want Jurors that are CSI Superfreaks. They made it clear that scientific evidence, primarily DNA evidence, WAS NOT REQUIRED for a conviction, as one could be obtained purely on circumstantial evidence, if it were strong enough. Likewise they didn't want Jurors that were oblivious or flat out against scientific evidence.
~Delved into Jurors thoughts on the gathering of evidence, and likewise the legitimacy of it.
**Obviously TW is going to try and diminish the significance of any evidence by characterize it as untrustworthy because of its collection or chain of custody. Yes, we get it, Cops have planted evidence before, and they will again (FU NYPD). However here we are talking about a small town, a small Sheriff's office, and no perceivable reason as to why any member of Law Enforcement would have anything to gain by fudging evidence. No, there was no improperly gathered evidence, no bad links in the chain of custody, this is in my mind, just TW grasping at straws. He has to say SOMETHING against the evidence, so why not something so generic as, 'it was improperly gathered.'
~What are your feelings about testifying in your own defense?
**As one possible Juror said, "The DA on cross-examination could twist your words, catch you offguard, to make you look guilty." As he was saying this, McClish was very noticeably nodding his head Yes in agreement. A few Jurors explained that by not getting on the stand to testify in his own defense, as they would, they automatically (even if only slightly) see the defendant as guilty. Because why wouldn't you want your side heard, right? Well they weeded most of the Jurors that felt one way or the other out.
***A note here is that the Judge explained at one point that witness testimony must be weighed when there are contradicting stories, and that the status of the witnesses can be used to weigh this, ie are they a convicted felon. Well McClish is, which the Jury has not been allowed to find out thus far, even though in my eyes it is beyond pertinent to the case at hand, the first question the DA would likely ask him is, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" "Oh why yes, I am currently serving 14 years in Federal Prison for raping, sodomizing and assaulting with intent to harm ANOTHER BLM employee." Yeah, the Jury members that may have agreed with the nice, approachable guy veneer would have the cloth pulled from their eyes.
~Are you comfortable judging facts?
~Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt, can you distinguish the difference?
~Do you understand that the DA must prove certain elements of this case?
**DA gave the example of a fake trial for a motorcycle rider not wearing a helmet. He must prove that he was riding a motorcycle (element 1), on a public highway (element 2), and he wasn't wearing a helmet (element 3). All elements must be proven in order for there to be a guilty verdict.
~Addressed reasonable doubt with elements, would the jury have a problem seeing reasonable doubt in one element and not the others...
~Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove elements, scientific evidence is not needed, problem with that?
~The Jury must not take into consideration any punishment for the crime.
**McClish was noticeably physically uncomfortable when punishment was being discussed.
~DA not required to prove motive, does the Juror have an issue with that?
**Motive in this case is obvious, however I can understand that the DA wanted it known he doesn't have to provide motive, so if he does, perhaps that will be the last shred of evidence they need to come back with a guilty verdict.
*******During this round of Jury questioning, the DA was composed, clearly comfortable, and projecting his voice in such a manner that I had no issue hearing him all the way in the back of the courtroom. He was light and seemingly playful with the jurors, eliciting full on laughter from them and audience members more than 4 times. Again, McClish was fidgeting noticeably with his empty ring finger during the DAs time speaking with the possible Jurors, not once did he smirk or smile at anything said by the DA, even if the whole room had a chuckle. Contrary to that, he looked irked, like he was upset that the DA was able to play the room better than he wanted.
At this point the room has laughed or chuckled at the DA's comments 5 times, and TW only once. Tuesday would see 4 laughs directed at the DA's comments and again only once for TW. I understand that laughter may not have the largest impact on the outcome of a trial, however it goes to show who the Jurors are comfortable with, and who is comfortable doing something risky like making an attempt at humor in a murder trial. Laughter helps to pull someone off the pedestal that a title like Chief Deputy District Attorney puts them on, making them relatable and in turn more trustworthy, in my opinion. Which segways nicely into one of the DAs last questions for the prospective Jurors: Credibility vs Likability, can you distinguish between the two when it comes to witness testimony?
Another aspect that is pertinent, but which I should not write until after the trial is complete, is the DA's questioning strategy which I found equally cunning and brilliant. This is more a note to myself so I remember to include it at the end, as I do not wish for it to be public until the trial completes, however ask me in person and I can explain.
The final Jury:
Four Males, eight Females.
Four are in their twenties.
Three are in their thirties.
One is fourty-ish.
Two are in their Fifties.
Two appear to be in their sixties.
Jurors: If I grossly over/under-estimated your age, my apologies.
Of the reserve Jurors we have a 50 y/o, two 40's, and a 20 y/o.
About half the Jurors wear glasses, so another note, if you want to avoid Jury duty, dont go in wearing your glasses.
No comments:
Post a Comment