Author: William

Once the prosecution rested, the defense was able to present their case, I’m surprised that they did. I thought the attorney would close, simply arguing that the prosecution didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and thus we must acquit. However his client–Carlos–had other plans. In the end two people were called to the stand.

The first defense witness was the policeman that was first on the scene to interact with Bob, the man shot in the neck. He had described the gunshot to the neck as “a graze”. That was the entirety of his testimony.

We then took a break and returned to find the defendant on the witness stand. The only person more shocked than me was probably the defense attorney. If I was him, the last guy I would want under oath was my client but there he was in the flesh. The defendant, Carlos, then told his version of the fateful night. His testimony went something like this:

Carlos was on a date at a local restaurant with a lady friend of his. She left her car at the restaurant and he drove her to the nightclub. They arrived at the night club about midnight. Since Carlos was a VIP at the club, after a short wait, he was given a parking place in the front of the club. He and said lady then entered the club, underwent a security check, and were given his usual booth in the back of the club. He danced a few times and had a few glasses of Hennessey and Coke.

About 1:40 AM, the sound went off and the lights came up and people were encouraged to head for the exit. As a VIP, Carlos was offered an opportunity to exit via an alternative route but the lady had to pee so they headed towards the bathrooms locate near the main exit. They were in the back of the group being funneled to the exit area.

As they passed a large black man—Bender Bob, the two men bumped shoulders. Bob didn’t like it and gave Carlos a hard shoulder check. The two men exchanged words. Carlos said that the black man (Bob) said he was going to steal Carlos’ Rolex and then threatened to kill both he and his lady friend. Carlos testified that he told Bob to calm down. In response, Bob hit him full-on in the mouth with his right hand. Carlos said that the blow was so hard that he chipped one of his teeth. Despite the strength of the punch, Carlos said that he stood his ground and was not knocked backwards.

Simultaneously, Bob drew a gun; presumably with his left hand. Carlos said that he reached-up with his right hand and grabbed Bob’s hand with the gun. Carlos said that he was able to twist the gun toting hand of Bob around to the point that the black man (Bob) shot himself in the left side of his own neck. Carlos said that he never touched the trigger or had control of the weapon. After a single shot, the gun then fell to the floor. Carlos did not grab the gun but fled. As he was making his way down the stairs, he looked up towards the dance floor where the shooting had happened only to see Bob glaring at him from the top of the balcony. Carlos said he then exited the building. On his way out, Carlos testified that he told the head of security about the shooting upstairs (omitting his involvement) and then fled the scene.

Folks there are a few facts in the above account of Carlos’ defense that should stand out as odd comments for me to include. They stood out as peculiar to me too until we finally got to see the charges as the case was given to the jury. More to say when I discuss jury deliberation and the verdict in my next installment.

There is an old saying, “A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”. I would suggest that a man who ignores him council’s advice and takes the stand to perjure himself is just as foolish.

Why was defendant Carlos telling this version of events? What he said didn’t agree with the facts presented by witnesses that had already testified and everyone in the courthouse knew it. Additionally by taking the stand, the prosecuting attorney gets free and unfettered access to the accused under oath to shred Carlos’ story under cross-examination.

Cross-examination

The first thing the prosecution attorney did was go thru the letter written from jail that was intended to get a witness to change his testimony in exchange for defendant Carlos’ written thanks and ten thousand dollars in cash. (Considering that the accused claimed to be wearing a Rolex on the fateful night, this seemed like a paltry sum to me.) Carlos admitted to writing both the letter of instructions and the letter intended to be given to the witness from his jail cell. The letter contained the witness’ personal cell phone number, and information about his wife and children including their names. (Remember he got all this info after he was put in jail.) Carlos asserted that there was no threat in the letter since he promised only good things to the security guard should he change his testimony.

The prosecution was also able to introduce more information about the Carlos’ fight (flight as in fleeing not as in an aircraft) to Las Vegas. Upon being arrested in Vegas a week after the shooting, Carlos called his wife (not the person with him at club) and told her that he would be going away for a long time for attempted murder. (Admission against interest on recorded jail phone call is not too bright.)

Carlos could not say who screened him for weapons at the club the night of the shooting but maintained that it happened. He also said that the girlfriend’s purse was not checked by club security. His story was as outlined previously; namely, the gun was the black guy’s (Bender Bob’s) and he—the defendant—never had possession of the weapon and yes the black guy shot himself. When confronted with the fact that the head of security stated that Carlos never spoke with him following the shooting, his story began leaking badly. Carlos never explained what happened to his lady friend that he left stranded at the club. Since it was after 2 AM, maybe The Chief decided she was cute enough to offer her a ride to his teepee.

Carlos’ testimony was at odds with that of other witnesses; especially the confrontation with Bob. The defense never offered any witnesses to cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of what happened or to agree with Carlos’ version of the story. In the end, it was three witnesses of varying degrees of believability or the defendant Carlos’ version that we were expected to believe. Both could not be simultaneously true in many key respects.

To be continued…

Above Sam Waterston from NBC’s Law and Order, best known as a tough prosecution attorney

The prosecution case, as simply as I can state it was similar to what follows:

Bender Bob and his Bro decide to paint the town on a Thursday night. They start with a bottle of Hennessey, I don’t really know what that is, but I know its high octane.

They get to the club and Bob is drunk as a skunk and acting somewhat belligerent. He continues drinking and at closing time, the lights come up and Bob knows it’s time to go; however, he forgets where he left his cell phone. He turns around to head back to where he was sitting to search for his phone and bumps into Carlos. The two men exchange insults.

The confrontation escalated. A nearby security guard sees Bob hit Carlos in the face so he springs into action and grabs Bob from behind to restrain him. Carlos is knocked back from the strength of the punch but remains on his feet. Just as the security guard is grabbing Bob, Carlos pulls a Glock .45 and shoots Bob. The bullet goes thru the guard’s hand and into Bob’s neck. Bob falls backwards onto the security guard and both men hit a table that shatters under their combined weight. Think of it as a sloppy Quigley shot. Meanwhile, Carlos flees the scene.

Bob exits the night club via an auxiliary exit, wraps a shirt around the bullet wound in his neck and calls his mother to say goodbye thinking that he will bleed to death.

Carlos flees Sacramento and is arrested about a week later in Las Vegas. He is extradited to California and has been cooling his jets in the Sacramento County Jail.

Carlos had lots of time to ponder his situation before the trial. As the old saying goes, idle hands are the devil’s workshop. Well, old Carlos decided he needed to make this trial go away. After six months in the county jail, he called in a few markers and had a friend make an offer that the injured security guard couldn’t refuse. Yeah, Godfather Junior tried to get the key witness to recant his story or at least the part where Carlos was identified as the shooter. Carlos offered $10K in cash to the guard in exchange for “telling the truth about what happened”.

Carlos’ friend called the security guard on the guard’s personal cell phone. Thanks to the wonder of Bluetooth technology, the guard’s wife and small children heard the offer as the family was driving home after a supply run to the local Target. The call was described by the guard as “positive”. He was promised that good things financially and otherwise would happen if he changed his story. The caller also let the guard know that they knew the names and ages of his children and that the children too might benefit if the charges were ultimately dropped against Carlos.

The guard made the lead detective in the case aware of this attempted tampering with the case and the cell phone number used was traced to Carlos. As a result, Carlos is facing even more charges.

To be continued…

I just spent about four weeks on jury duty and I need to decompress, debrief, vent, or whatever you want to call it. I plan to write a few posts covering different aspects of the experience. First, I would like to write about the process itself.

The group that I was in reported for duty on a Tuesday. We checked in with a secretary of some sort in the jury room about 8 AM. Each prospective juror is handed a questionnaire to complete. Prospective jurors are asked if they have ever been the victim of a crime, called as a witness, or know someone convicted of a crime. About 8:30, a judge entered the room and gave us a speech about the importance of jury duty and thanked us for coming. In the past, this speech was an old VHS recording dubbed onto a DVD but this time the judge was in the flesh with a microphone in hand. That was different.

A few minutes later, we were called by name not group number—yet another change from my previous times on jury duty—and sent to a courtroom on another floor of the building. After we made our way up the stairs and gathered in front of the courtroom door, a Sacramento County sheriff deputy opened the door and began calling names. The first names called were directed to the jury box. I was the third name called. Just like that I found myself in the jury box starting the day as juror number three.

The folks that are in the jury box plus some others, are then subjected to a series of questions. Based on your answers, you may find yourself excused from jury duty. Other folks were given the opportunity to be excused based on their work and the length of the trial which was estimated to run three weeks. Still others were booted from this case if they had medical trailing or specialized trailing in firearms. The questionnaire completed in the jury room is the starting point for questions along with things specific to the case. The prosecution, defense, and judge each get a copy of the questionnaires. Many people were excused from jury duty in my group. I figured that I was old, white, and male so I was sure to get the boot eventually. Amazingly, that didn’t happen. Some older folks than me did get the boot and so did all the black folks in the jury pool.

We were told to return for more on the second day because jury selection was not completed. The elimination process continued until the lawyers quit booting people. All of the sudden, about halfway thru the second morning there was agreement between the prosecution and defense. All the folks in the spectator part of the courtroom were dismissed and fifteen of us—twelve jurors and three alternates—were being sworn-in as the jury.

After a short break, the trial began.

The prosecuting attorney is given the first move in making the opening remarks of the trial. “We will prove the following…” Then the lawyer tells their case in outline form against the accused. In our trial this took about 15 minutes. Then the defense attorney had his turn and took about three minutes. He said my client did it in self-defense and sat down. Please note that you are not given a detailed explanation of the charges against the accused at the beginning. The charges were mentioned once at the beginning and not again until the trial was concluded.

A jury trial is not like you see it on television or the movies. The biggest factors in the trial are the judge and the lawyers. The judge runs the overall thing but the real work is that of the lawyers. The trial is only as good as the questions that the lawyers ask each witness. The judge will occasionally ask a question of a witness but the jury cannot.

The jury is given a tablet and pen to take notes. These notes are not allowed to leave the courtroom until the jury deliberates that case, then they can be taken to the jury room for use during deliberations. Finally the notes are destroyed.

The next thing that is very different is that the witnesses are not called in chronological order of events. Our first witness was a doctor testifying about the injuries received by the victim of a gunshot wound. Then a witness to the shooting was called. Then a ballistics guy then another witness to the crime and then lots of police. Think of court testimony as a photo that is shredded by a playful puppy and then you randomly pick up each piece that the dog did not eat to see if you can understand the whole of the picture.

Video, fingerprints, DNA, and other technical wizardry are not a big part of most trials. As in this case, it was witnesses with varying degrees of believability that were called upon to testify.

Over the course of many days the story slowly comes into focus. You get the feeling watching this unfold that trying to schedule all these witnesses is like herding cats so they can fit the timeframe of the court. Some witnesses take ten minutes and others several hours. Some are willing to testify while others clearly would rather be anywhere else than court. But again, the answers are only as good as the questions.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the case against the accused. Early in this trial, the court made a big deal about the fact that the accused was not required to testify or even offer a defense. (I will have more on this in another installed of this series.) All evidence gathered by the prosecution in the investigation is required to be disclosed to the defense.

Something else that defies life in the real world are the hours kept by the court. Trials start at 9 AM for juries but the doors of the courtroom may not open until 9:30. Lunch can begin anywhere from 11 to noon but afternoon sessions always begin (in theory) at 1:30. The day usually ends at 4 PM but can go as late as 5.

I would arrive about 7 AM each morning, eat my breakfast in the jury parking lot, and then get 5 to 6 thousand steps each morning before court began. I arrived early partially to keep somewhat to my usual working hours and partially to beat the traffic. Also, jury parking is at a premium—especially at the beginning of each week.

The closing arguments went something like this: the judge read some instructions, then the prosecution did a 50 minute PowerPoint presentation going over each charge and point of law, and then the defense council did his best to muddy-up the waters in the hopes of creating reasonable doubt. The prosecution got a short rebuttal and then the jury was off to make a decision.

In short, we took a one hour episode of Law and Order and split it into pieces over a three week period.

More on the case in the next installment.