Ok, I just don’t get this controversy. When the P.D. pulls their weapons and gives you an instruction, you better follow it. End of story. If the cops were wrong, then that’s why we have lawyers.
I’ve watched enough cops shows back in the day and shootings on the news to know that you comply with police instructions and better drop the cell phone or whatever is in your hands because they will presuppose you are holding a weapon. Clark ran and failed to follow instructions by cops with their weapons drawn. It is fair to say that he provoked a confrontation. He rolled the dice and lost.
Now people claim that they want justice for Stephon. The only thing nobody can define is what is “justice for Stephon?” Protestors say that they want the cops fired and presumable the police chief too but for what? (FYI I never hear from them that one of the two cops that shot Stephon was black or that the police chief is too so this can’t be a racial thing, right?) What does any of this have to do with justice? I can understand Ann Marie Schubert not wanting to prosecute but Javier Becerra?
Sacramento County District Attorney Ann Marie Schubert
Javier would gladly throw Schubert under the bus if he wanted too. He has filed a new lawsuit against President Trump every week for the last two years; none of which he will win. Becerra is all in for political posturing not following the law. Let’s face it, Schubert waited until Becerra gave assurances that he wouldn’t throw her under the bus before announcing that the officers would not face charges. Darrell Steinberg is the one doing the posturing in all this at the expense of the police and public safety just to score cheap political points.
Folks let’s take a cold, honest look at this situation. The people leading the so call “Stephon Clark protests for justice” are part of a paid political operation. This is the same continuing campaign as Occupy Sacramento, Black Lives Matters, Antifa, and all the rest. This is Obama’s community organizing; just taking advantage of the next target of opportunity. “The Tell” as they say in poker is folks like Reverend Al Sharpton stirring up the faithful and the group of people camped out in front of the District Attorney’s Office for the last year. This is a paid and coordinated campaign that reaches from Stephon’s neighborhood into the Legislature.
The Stephon protests are all about tearing down law and order and have nothing to do with justice. This is the same scam as reparations and other things perpetrated on the black community. Whatever Stephon’s family thinks, there is no definition of how to decide when justice is achieved. It is an ethereal and empty promise. They are being used. I’m sorry that this is happening to them but at some point, they have to take responsibility for their association and continued involvement with this rent-a-mob.
Before concluding, I must give a special condemnation of the so-called clergy involved in this circus. I watched one of the first press conferences after the shooting and was ready to give Stephon a chance until they paraded Al Sharpton out as a leader. Once Al showed his face, you knew this was a political operation, one unconcerned with justice. Sharpton only shows up if someone is angling for a large check.
A real minister would not get immersed in such a mess as this. What happened to “government is established by God to bear the sword?” What happened to keeping the commandments? What about avoiding the company of evil men? What about turning the other cheek? What about allowing God to take vengeance? What about caring for the widow and orphan? (Per the Bible, this is the responsibility of individuals not government.) What happened to the gospel? What about abortion? Whatever these guys are saying either from the pulpit or the press conference, it’s not based on the Bible. No wonder people can’t get out of the plantation, they aren’t being shown the way.
The fake outrage from organizers of the Stephon Clark protests are just furthering a political narrative. They want to get the community so emotionally worked-up that people will call them leaders and follow them; however, unlike Moses in the wilderness, there is no destination, only dry bones in the desert where these folks are being herded.
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
— Proverbs 14:12
The Apostle Paul warns us of those that “preacheth another Jesus, … another spirit, …, or another gospel, …” (2 Cor 11:4) When I hear that Stephon is innocent because of the color of his skin and not the content of his character, I know that the person speaking is uttering falsehood. If the person is not promoting agape love, they are speaking falsely, if the person is not promoting Biblical values but spewing words based on Marxism and Liberation Theology that they speak falsely.
The Biblical standard of justice requires that no preference be given to the rich or the poor but that all are equal before the law. However,
“As Karl Marx phrased it, the battle cry of the revolutionaries must be: “permanent revolution!” Anarchist Leo Tolstoy agreed: “The only revolution is the one that never stops.”
— David Chilton from Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, p 84
Stephon Clark was another youth that died as a result of an accumulation of stupid life choices. Had he been raised to follow the values and practices that he should have received from all the ministers that purport to speak for him now, he would still be walking upon our planet. He wouldn’t have abused drugs, had an extensive criminal record, and fathered children out of wedlock. Stephon is a household name not for what he did right but for what he failed to do.
Again, I don’t care whether you think you are right or wrong, if a guy with a badge pulls a weapon on you, then you comply. If he’s wrong, get a lawyer.
“The Chief” and I recently held a teleconference in which the main object of discussion was the arrest of Robert Kraft. The mixed messages of this story when viewed with other events in our culture today illustrate a schizophrenia that just can’t be reconciled.
Was Kraft’s Behavior Criminal (allegedly)
In his article, The Chief, took a rather libertarian position on the issue of prostitution. Clearly Florida law enforcement took a dim view of ‘the oldest profession”. Kraft’s arrest was reported about the 22nd of February. But just over a week later (March 3rd), US Senator and Presidential wannabe, Kamala D. Harris, is featured in a Washington Times article advocating for the legalization of prostitution nationwide. She wants Federal law to negate the prostitution laws in all 50 states (57 if you believe President Obama).
Obama’s visit to 57 states
The decriminalization debate among Democrats spilled into the 2020 presidential race last month when Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California said she was supportive of the idea — although the legalization crowd complained that she was still too timid. It was less than a decade ago that the Democratic Party embraced same-sex marriage and just three years ago that it formally adopted a platform plank to legalize marijuana. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva of Arizona, chairman emeritus of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said decriminalizing sex work is on “that same trajectory.”
“But when you are talking about consenting adults, I think that you know, yes, we should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed,” she said. It’s a major shift from 2008 when, as San Francisco district attorney, she called the idea ridiculous.
OK, so Kraft should forfeit his NFL franchise for paying for sex but a serious candidate for US President says if effect, “whatever floats your boat.” How can both be simultaneously true?
Can I See Your Green Card
Next, Kraft’s hospitality providers were specially targeted because the women that entertained him were in the country illegally. Wait just a darn minute! What is the Left always telling us? There are no illegal aliens in the United States. Aren’t we told they are undocumented workers? Aren’t many states including California suing the Trump Administration because he is trying to enforce immigration law? In the name of state’s rights, California is saying, “No” these people are our guests and welcome here. California and many other states assert that you have no right to know the status of people from other places. They want everyone with our borders treated the same.
Look at the hypocrisy in this logic. Does the law hold customers responsible for the immigration status of employees in the businesses that they wish to utilize? Do you ask the cook at your local taco place for his papers before ordering the combo plate with refried beans? When the AAA driver arrives at your roadside emergency, do you check him for a current Green Card and driver’s license before letting him put a new battery in your disabled car?
Given that customers are not responsible anywhere else to know the immigration status of a business’s employees, why is Robert Kraft being held to a different standard? Because he is rich? Because he likes President Trump? Because a guy that old can still need the affections of a woman? Folks let’s face it, when a naked woman is reaching for your manhood, the last thing on your mind is her immigration status.
Conclusion
Robert Kraft is a rich guy that wanted to satisfy his primal urges without any consequences. He has enough people in his past vying for their share of his vast fortune. As such he did what many wealthy people (and Democrats) do all across our great country, he sought out a business that offered a service that “consenting adults” could utilize. As a customer, it is ridiculous that people are trying to hold him responsible for the immigration status of somebody else’s employees. It is more than ironic that the same political party that is carrying the torch for legalizing prostitution nationwide is the same party that runs the county where he was arrested for doing the very thing they want to make legal.
Robert Kraft is being prosecuted by Democrats for doing things that Democrats say should be legal. I think the real problem is that Democrats just haven’t figured out how to tax prostitution, yet they know Kraft can afford the tax, so they are just mad about the lost revenue. Or maybe there just isn’t any unifying logic in this whole thing and they really are just schizophrenic. Michael Savage says “Liberalism is a mental illness” and maybe this is just another example of symptoms to prove his case.
A week ago, Thursday, the closing arguments of the trial began. The prosecution went first with a 50 minute PowerPoint presentation that covered the charges and how the evidence fit the charges. This was followed by the defense attorney recasting the testimony of the witnesses in such a way to benefit his client (think James Carville defending Bill Clinton). The defense attorney did a masterful job of misdirection and obfuscation. The prosecution then got a small rebuttal.
Then, just over three weeks after jury selection began, the trial went to the jury. Due to the trial running so long and some jurors having conflicts, the jury agreed to meet the following Monday to begin deliberations. The three day weekend gave me and presumably the others some time to reflect on our responsibility as a jury and the evidence. (In my opinion, had the jury started deliberations immediately after the defense’s closing argument’s it would have taken much more time for them to arrive at a verdict due to the level of doubt introduced.)
Monday morning finally arrived. The jury gathered and entered the deliberation room. We talked for a while and waited for the stenographer to arrive. We wanted to rehear the testimony of the two main witnesses. One man in particular was the crown jewel of the prosecution’s case. He was the man offered the bribe. He was the type guy that took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in his mind, his DD214 did not absolve him of the responsibility. He identified the shooter at the scene of the crime while waiting for medical aid. Both attorneys stated that this witness was reliable and correct in his testimony, at least up to the point of the actual shooting and then–per the defense–he was mistaken.
This is where I can get into the charges; however, I’m doing this from memory so I won’t be citing charter and verse for each accusation. All together there were five counts.
The big charge was attempted murder of Bender Bob. Alternately, the jury could look at a lesser charge of attempted manslaughter.
assault with a semi-automatic firearm causing great bodily injury to Bender Bob–shot in neck.
assaultwith a semi-automatic firearm causing great bodily injury to the security guard–shot in hand.
a felon in possession of a gun.
witness tampering.
Several of the charges had additional factors associated with them. For example on the assault charges, if Carlos was guilty then we had to consider: Did the assault cause severe injury to the victim? And did Carlos use a semi-automatic weapon? The felon in possession of a weapon charge required that Carlos possess the weapon or control it when fired. The law does not say he had to own it, basically if he was touching it when it fired then he was guilty of violating this statue.
Bender Bob started the altercation. On this point both prosecution and defense council agreed. Did Bob draw the gun too? Bob testified that he hit Carlos because he saw Carlos drawing the weapon; however, Bob was so drunk his version might be the product of his imagination. Could Carlos’ defense testimony be true? Much of any reasonable doubt the jury might have stemmed from the answer to this issue. This was the main purpose of the read back of the witness testimony.
The question that much of the case hinged on was where did the gun come from? A shell casing was recovered at the scene but no weapon was recovered during the course of the investigation. Three choices were postulated in the trial about the gun:
The defendant, Carlos–the prosecution claimed that he brought and used the gun but Carlos claimed he didn’t and furthermore, he never had the gun or control of it
Bender Bob–the guy who got shot in the neck, Carlos’ defense testimony was that the gun was Bob’s but nobody asked Bob during the trial about ownership of the gun.
The girlfriend, who’s purse kept being brought-up by the defense with no follow-thru (she was never asked to testify).
The purse was a red herring that explained nothing about the gun so nobody gave it much thought; especially after the defendant, Carlos, took the stand and blamed Bob for being the owner. Thus did defendant Carlos bring gun and shoot Bob as the prosecution alleged or did the victim, Bob, bring the gun and shoot himself during struggle? Did the defendant have possession of the gun at any point? If so he was guilty of count four.
Oh, while waiting for the stenographer, the jury voted guilty on count five related to intimidation of a witness. There was no debate on this point since both attorneys has stipulated that Carlos wrote the letter and arranged the phone call making the offer. Carlos agreeing to all this under oath sealed his fate on that count.
Should some enterprising criminal ever read this post, please understand that promising good things should a witness change his testimony also has the implied threat that bad things will happen if you don’t, whether the threat is explicit or not. The fact that the witness called the lead detective as soon as the call terminated and ditched his cell phone number for a new one is further proof he took it as a threat.
The testimony read back took two and a half hours but the intrepid stenographer made it thru the evidence that we needed to hear to get back on track. After a few minutes of discussion, we agreed to break for lunch.
Deliberations resumed at 1:30 PM.
It was clear that the jury would not agree to the attempted murder charge. This statute required premeditation and there was no consensus that the shooting in this case was premeditated. I could argue that bringing a gun to a night club is a premeditated act but that Bender Bob was shot seemed the opposite of premeditation.
The attempted manslaughter charge was more achievable but a few jurors wanted to examine whether the shooting as described by Carlos was self-defense. Two different reasons can get you to attempted manslaughter, one of which is imperfect self-defense. For many jurors, the question of guilt hinged on whether bringing out a gun and firing it at a fistfight was excessive force for this situation.
The presence of security and other options available to Carlos were discussed. Carlos’ assertion that Bob shot himself was just too incredible to believe. Had Carlos claimed that Bob had the gun but Carlos grabbed it and tried to scare Bob and it accidently discharged, Carlos might have been acquitted. Carlos’ version was clearly some jailhouse lawyering that was concocted to get him off all the charges.
It was clear that Carlos lied about all the following:
Being checked by security as he entered the building–security guards testified that VIP’s were exempted from thorough scanning and often enter the building with no check at all
Carlos said when he was hit so hard that a tooth was chipped but that he never took a step backwards but stood his ground, this was contrary to the other witnesses and common sense
Bob glaring down at him from the balcony after the shooting (discussed below)
Talking to the head of security after the shooting–head of security never spoke with Carlos
Never trying to tamper with witness testimony–Carlos maintained there was no threat explicit or implied in his offer
Before I go on, let’s talk about Bob and the balcony. In order for this to be true the following things had to have happened in less than ten seconds.
Bob gets shot in the neck with a .45
Bob and the security guard fall backwards and land on a table, breaking it into several pieces. (They fell in the opposite direction from the exit.)
Bob would then have to scramble to his feet and scoop up the gun at the scene of the shooting
Bob would then have to run to the balcony and already be there so that he could be seen glaring at Carlos as he got to the landing halfway down the stairs
Police found no blood between the scene of the shooting and the front of the dance floor where balcony is located
Bob was drunk as a skunk and highly impaired, and barely mobile
Other threads that cast doubt on Carlos’ version of the story are that he never called the girl he brought to the club or arranged to get her home; instead, he just ran away. He never called the police or offered to make a statement against Bob. The only time Bob was accused of having the gun was by Carlos in open court, you’d think even if the cops didn’t investigate this that Carlos’ lawyer would use the possibility to create reasonable doubt when Bob was on the witness stand. Fleeing to Las Vegas and the Vegas jail call to his wife about “going away for a long time for attempted murder” doesn’t help either. As a whole, Carlos’ behavior is hardly that of an innocent person. As a convicted felony, only Carlos had any reason to lie about the events of the shooting.
After reading the law given to the jury as part of our written instructions, we ruled out self-defense and voted guilty of attempted manslaughter.
Having concluded that Carlos is the only person that witnesses saw holding the gun and firing it at Bob and the fact that Carlos was full of B.S. with his version of the story that Bob shot himself, finding him guilty of assault and possessing a weapon was a simple matter. By a few minutes after 3 PM, we had five verdicts.
As slow as court proceedings had been going, we figured it would take until the following day to gather all the folks to have the jury verdicts read in court. Wrong! As it turned out, the prosecuting attorney was in courthouse on another case, the defendant was downstairs in the cooler, and his lawyer was just down the street. The defense attorney was the last of the three to arrive. I could tell by the look on his face that he already knew the verdicts. One of the other jurors commented that he looks glum. I responded that is because he already knew the verdict. I said we decided too fast to find his client innocent, he knows it. About the time we were let into the courtroom, Carlos’ parents had arrived—at least I saw him mom and sister before going into the courtroom.
When the verdict on the first charge was read, “on the count of attempted murder, not guilty”, you could sense some hope coming from Carlos but then his world shattered. “On the lesser count of attempted manslaughter, guilty” and every other guilty verdict that was read, he let out an audible gasp. The jury also found Carlos guilty of all the modifiers associated with the charges. I didn’t look but it seemed that he was being restrained from making further outbursts. His family began sobbing after the first guilty verdict was pronounced.
I felt sorry for the family that had been in the courtroom every day of the trial but I was convinced that their son was guilty. The prosecution made a fairly solid case. Carlos’ story did not fit the facts of the case. His testimony hurt his cause; especially when he attempted to explain that Bob shot himself. Bob was about 6’ 2’ and close to 280 lbs. while Carlos was about 5’ 6” and 165 lbs.
The defense attorney then tried the final Hail Mary play in the book and polled each juror for their vote on each of the five verdicts. After 60 votes, it was over. The judge thanked us for our service and dismissed us.
Subsequent to the trial I have wondered if I did the right thing and after many days of contemplation, I think given the evidence, that Carlos is guilty. As to his sentence, that is up to the judge and will be decided another day.
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.
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.
Hey Mikey, take the 5th
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.
Glock .45
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.
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.
Believe it or not, NPR (National Public Radio) is reporting that 2/3 of all school shootings reported during the 2015/2016 school year never happened.
This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.” The number is far higher than most other estimates.
But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government’s Civil Rights Data Collection.
We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.
In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn’t confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn’t respond to our inquiries.
A separate investigation by the ACLU of Southern California also was able to confirm fewer than a dozen of the incidents in the government’s report, while 59 percent were confirmed errors.
When Liberals are honest enough to admit that “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics” it makes you wonder.
Blogger’s note:
I am disguising my identity due to my standing in a group that aids and assists the Catholic Church where I worship on Sundays due to my status as the 3rd highest ranking officer. The opinions in this blog represent one man’s experience and opinions, not those of the Blog Father or his other contributors. Additionally, some graphic nature of this blog may be disturbing to some of our readers, I apologize in advance.
When I was a young lad, I was brought into the church the old-fashioned way, I was forced to attend. While I was usually allowed to look at a picture book or sit and read the bulletin, I was a weekly attendee at every Sunday service. Mom insured that I was always dressed up as if I was going to the Oscar’s immediately afterward. Upon receiving the final blessing and going forth after the procession leaving church I was always told to say hello to the priest (or father) as they call them in the Catholic Church. I always complied and was very impressed with our priest. As a young lad I found it more interesting that this person said Mass every weekend, and always seemed to wear a different robe, and when he spoke everyone listened. Fr. Barry Brunswick always captivated the audience. The highlight of my Sunday as a 5-8-year-old was Fr. Barry saying make sure you go to the social hall and grab a donut; good boys get donuts for free.
Church for me as a young lad was like golf, many attended but few understood. I certainly didn’t, except for the whole “your sins are forgiven go forth” at the end of each Mass. I thought this was like a get out of jail free card, I was happy going to church each Sunday. Fr. Barry was eventually moved, the Catholic Church does this every 6 years or so, and as a result we found a new church to attend as we moved as well. I found out this past week a reason we moved was the priest incoming was transferred from Florida and had child molestation in his background.
As I grew I attended High School at Jesuit High in Carmichael, here in Sacramento County. I loved my time there, even more so I really grew to like my art teacher my freshman year Brother Charles Onorato. I couldn’t draw a stick figure very well, but Brother Onorato challenged me, and I grew better for it. Then everything changed, news of some Catholic Priests abusing young boys came out. I still remember our Pope saying it was a couple rogue priests and the problem was isolated, I believed it. Then one day Brother Onorato was not at class. We were told by the Dean of Students Karl “Hiel” Hanff he was removed due to accusations of him abusing young boys. I was devastated, like anyone would be. I figured Onorato was the least likely to be accused. As of this writing I am unsure if anything happened to him, and if anything did I don’t want to know, it would break my heart.
Brother Charles Onorato, whatever caused his removal at Jesuit High School, is still a Jesuit in good standing
Hundreds of priests were accused, rounded up, and shipped out, much like the Salem Witch Trials. I thought this was only a few rogue priests Mr. Pope? I questioned my own faith, these same people preaching from the pulpit about morality, and telling me not to lie….lied. They did not practice what they preached. I thought very long and hard about switching faiths, the Catholic Church was no longer for me.
Over time, the tragedy quieted down, and faded from the news, I didn’t leave the church, in fact I mistakenly became more involved. I rose through the ranks after just a few years and became the number 5 in command, I was required to attend a meeting put on by members of Supreme from Connecticut. At this meeting we were told EVERY MEMBER of our group would be required to do online training and get fingerprinted at our own expense and have the results turned over to the local church office to remain a member in good standing. Keep in mind the church office staff are not priests and would have access to anyone’s criminal record check. Several members asked why it was our group being singled out and not the actual priests who had a history of crimes in their past? We were told that issue is in the past and we could have members with child molestation in our ranks. So, we all had to pay for background checks, with our own money by the way. To this day I have not heard of a single member being thrown out due to any criminal past. Just as an addition, the Sacramento Diocese stretches from Sacramento County over to Nevada and all the way north to Oregon, one of the largest by land mass in the Catholic Church. The church is divided up into sub groups called diocese, run by the bishop.
The issue largely went silent and many, myself included were under the impression that the church had cleaned house and a new day was here. We were proven wrong. A bombshell report out of Pennsylvania alleges that over 70 years 300 catholic priests in 6 out of the 8 dioceses sexually abused over 1,000 victims. Even more disturbing is in that same grand jury investigation, priests and bishops urged victims not to report the abuse, and law enforcement not to investigate it. I guess the collar has a separate set of rules from the masses that attend church. Perhaps even more disturbing, the cover up was ordered by the archbishop of Pennsylvania, this person is akin to being Governor of a state, the top law enforcement officer. This report came out on the heels of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington DC resigning after reports surfaced he abused young priests, seminarians, and minors. Seminarians are those who are studying to become priests, apparently McCarrick didn’t discriminate age wise. The cardinals vote to pick the Pope by the way, you can see how powerful they are. Some of those named in this report not only avoided prosecution but they were promoted in the ranks. One of those bishops named is now the archbishop of the Washington DC diocese. One priest named, abused 5 sisters in the same family, including one when she was 18 months old. Luckily for most named in the report the statute of limitations has run out, so they will avoid any penance for their sins. This just in, the diocese has appealed to the 3rd Circuit to keep the names in the report sealed, so much for that whole transparency thing promised 15 years ago.
Now some excerpts from the report…again, these are very disturbing in nature:
“It catalogs horrific instances of abuse: a priest who raped a young girl in the hospital after she had her tonsils out; another victim tied up and whipped with leather straps by a priest; and another priest who was allowed to stay in ministry after impregnating a young girl and arranging for her to have an abortion.”
Abortion is a sin that the Catholic Church prays for an end to each week by the way.
“Despite some institutional reform, individual leaders of the church have largely escaped public accountability,” the grand jury wrote. “Priests were raping little boys and girls, and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all. For decades.”
The grand jury said that while some accused priests were removed from ministry, the church officials who protected them remained in office or even got promotions. One bishop named in the report as vouching for an abusive priest was Cardinal Donald Wuerl, now the archbishop of Washington. “Until that changes, we think it is too early to close the book on the Catholic Church sex scandal,” the jury wrote.
Here is a good one, on relocation…….brought to us by Cardinal Wuerl named above:
Father Paone was relocated successively to Los Angeles, San Diego and Reno in the following years, with Pittsburgh’s bishops attesting to his fitness as a priest. Among those bishops was Cardinal Wuerl, now the archbishop of Washington. He accepted Father Paone’s resignation from ministry in good standing in 2003, allowing him to collect his pension.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, an architect of sexual abuse cover-up
Wuerl even nominated himself for sainthood prior to this report coming out, check this out:
Cardinal Wuerl released a letter to his priests on Monday, saying that while the grand jury report would be “critical of some of my actions, I believe the report also confirms that I acted with diligence, with concern for the survivors and to prevent future acts of abuse.”
This quote from a person who attempted to commit suicide due to abuse by a priest:
“From her hospital bed, she asked for one thing,” the grand jury wrote in the report, “that we finish our work and tell the world what really happened.”
Some victims were plied with alcohol and groped or molested, the report says. Others were orally, vaginally or anally raped, according to the grand jurors.
“But all of them were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institution above all.”
Among the more egregious cases, the grand jury reports that:
• In the Greensburg diocese, a priest impregnated a 17-year-old, forged a pastor’s signature on a marriage certificate and divorced the girl months later. According to the grand jury, the priest was allowed to stay in ministry by finding a “benevolent bishop.”
• Another priest in Greensburg groomed middle-school students for sex, according to the grand jury, by telling them that Mary had to “bite off the cord” and “lick” Jesus clean after the Nativity.
• In Harrisburg, a priest abused five sisters from the same family and collected samples of their urine, pubic hair and menstrual blood.
• Also in Harrisburg, a priest raped a 7-year-old girl who was in the hospital after her tonsils were removed, according to the report.
• In Pittsburgh, church officials said that a 15-year-old boy “pursued” and “literally seduced” a priest. A church report later acknowledged that the priest had admitted to “sado-masochistic” activities with several boys.
• In the Allentown diocese, a priest admitted sexually molesting a boy and pleaded for help, according to documents, but was left in ministry for several more years.
• Also in Allentown, a priest who had abused several boys, according to the grand jury, was given a recommendation to work at Disney World.
• In Scranton, a priest who later served prison time for abusing children was found to have been HIV-positive for years.
Tuesday’s news conference began with a short video of three victims who told how they were abused and how it changed their lives.
An 83-Year-Old Man Said He Couldn’t Show Any Affection To His Wife And Children As A Result Of The Abuse he suffered. A woman said the abuse started when she was 18 months old. Another man said, “When you have the priest touching you every day, that’s a hard memory to have. The first erection that you have is at the hands of a priest.”
Church officials followed a “playbook for concealing the truth,” the grand jury said, minimizing the abuse by using words like “inappropriate contact” instead of “rape”; assigning priests untrained in sexual abuse cases to investigate their colleagues; and not informing the community of the real reasons behind removing an accused priest.
“Tell his parishioners that he is on ‘sick leave,’ or suffering from ‘nervous exhaustion.’ Or say nothing at all,” the report said.
He said that the cover-up by senior church officials “stretched in some cases all the way up to the Vatican.”
In summary, it’s once again crisis time at the Catholic Church, and once again they proved they never learned from the past. Churches in Canada and the Midwest are closing at alarming rates, and no one seems to care. A weak-kneed email was sent to all members of the group I belong to saying anyone who has abused someone should be removed from public service……I guess the church feels priests are akin to a government worker. Removed from public service, like teachers who get put in a room and continue to accrue service time and when the time comes enjoy full retirement? The Blog Father and I agree on this; they should be defrocked and removed from the clergy permanently in shame. The cardinals elected a Pope who is nothing more than a weak-kneed social justice warrior who cares more about America accepting more immigrants than policing his own. He would rather look the other way and hope the issue blows over as opposed to taking a stand and saying there will be a worldwide review at every level of the church and no one is safe. However, he won’t do this, because sadly Catholicism has essentially become a multi-level marketing scheme, they care more about bringing in new members than retention or finding true believers. Try it for yourself, put a few dollars in the basket when it comes around and regardless of your views on marriage, abortion, or the death penalty they will accept you. Nebraska and Illinois have pending investigations and Australia apparently has a huge investigation into this…..buckle up folks this is going to get very ugly. Let priests get married you will find a better pool from which to pull from and these issues likely will not be as prevalent…..in the mean time I may be searching for a faith that actually practices what it preaches. I am embarrassed and upset about my own faith. They are led by weak kneed, spineless people who literally turned a blind eye to abuse of children, innocent young children.
Jake the Snake
Disclaimer: any resemblance to this author and some other guy named Jake is purely coincidental; furthermore, Jake is not related to the snake in the account of Adam and Eve.
Doubtless you are familiar with the phrase “Crime doesn’t pay” but actually is does; just not much unless you are in elected office.
I came across the latest wage schedule of what prisoners earn per hour when working inside the prison system. When compared to what Apple pays people to make iPhones, these guys are really doing well.
Depending on which report you believe, Apple pays somewhere between five to thirty dollars in manufacturing costs to assemble each phone. The hourly wage is estimated to be about $1.78. The guy in China making $1.78 per hour is probably having to support a wife and their government permitted one child plus all his household expenses.
Note: no recent cost estimates were found, Apple keeps this info under wraps
On the other hand, incarcerated individuals pay no housing costs and get three squares a day. Their income is tax free and used primarily for their own use. They also get free healthcare that is better than whatever you’re getting on the outside. If they had to pay Medicare, Social Security, plus State and Federal taxes, they would have to be paid much more (as a percentage) to clear a dollar an hour in wages.
2018 prison wage schedule
In many cases, taxpayers pick up this slack for guests of the California penal system and pay their families welfare, Obamacare, and other benefits.
Lest you thought Fake News was your only concern, how about Fake Justice?
Like every other institution in our society, the courts tend to replace “justice” with “process”. Thus if you “get process” or “go thru the system” then it is assumed that you have arrived at a just outcome. Clearly this is not always the case. We have a colorful history in our country of judicial nullification that has occasionally happened when juries ignore stupid laws and rule that the law itself is unjust.
Grand Juries are convened as a way to bring an indictment against an individual. This is another path that law enforcement can use when perhaps a district attorney is not sure if the evidence warrants pressing charges. Grand Juries also have special investigative rights and can even publish findings of wrong doing.
On the other hand, I’m sure you’ve heard the saying that “a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich”.
Today I read about a grand jury that handed down 900 indictments in one day. They took an average of 39 seconds per indictment.
Not a single case was no billed in June — meaning all 904 cases went forward against the accused.
The average time per indictment was 39 seconds in June, meaning there is no way that grand jurors could have properly considered each case, the lawyers said.
I agree that that doesn’t pass the Tom Sullivan “smell test”. I think it takes more than 39 seconds to order a ham sandwich at your local Subway. How can enough evidence even be heard to decide if a person can be charged with a crime?
