Oh joy, I won the lottery

[def90]

Just wear this when you go in..



oops.. read through the rest of the thread.. well anyway.. in the future, wear this..

[streetglideok]

I could have easily taken the path of making lame excuses why I could not serve. Financially I had a good reason to be disqualified, however I felt compelled to let the cards fall however they fall. The media, typical for them, did not give a good portrayal of what happened. First off, we are bound strictly by what evidence is provided in the case, and can not rely on outside information. I know this is a no brainer, but it really changes the dynamics of how you think at home about a trial in the news, and when you're in the jury box. In all honesty, my thoughts swayed back and forth as each witness came forth. I had not made a solid decision yesterday at lunch time when we were ushered into the jury room. To complicate things, about every witness(outside of LEO) had a conflicting story. Some of which I blame on tunnel vision, just due to the events that unfolded in front of them. Most of them had been drinking to some degree, and that played a part as well. Some placed the shooter in weird places that made no sense, while others said this victim or that victim was standing in different locations. Most of the guys denied gang involvement, or that the victims were involved in gangs. The girls denied there were drugs. The girls were young, the youngest being 14 at the time of the shooting. There was the story of the jailhouse snitch, that said two witnesses that were in jail with him said guns were stashed in a caprice behind the apartments. We had the CSI people come in, talking about gun shot residue, and when they will and wont process GSR tests. They went over the bullets and casings, and what kind of gun was likely used. We had not one, not two, but three shrinks come in and go over the mental state of Paige. The eye doctor that said his eye sight was horrible, 20/400 without corrective lenses, the DNA expert from CBI, etc. We had the autopsy photos, very graphic and the ME giving a very descriptive statement about what the bullets did. The victim's mothers were on the stand at one point.

What it came down to was this. Was enough evidence present to make it possible for other weapons to have been on scene and were smuggled out before the cops got there? Was he in fear for his life, and was it reasonable force for self defense? Was this feud a revenge over a fight with a twin brother of a victim a few days before? Could he have done all of the shooting with intent, without glasses(he could see about 2-3ft away without lenses, after that it would be blurry) and drive the getaway car to flee the scene? Could he accurately put 9 of 10 9mm bullets into people, killing 2 people with such poor eye sight? How credible was all the witnesses?

We know drugs were present due to toxicology tests on the two murder victims, cocaine and weed, as well as significant alcohol levels. The coke was out of their systems, they likely used it earlier in the night. The jail bird snitch, claimed to have heard two people talking at the pull up bar at JDC earlier this year, however one of them turns out was having problems with his wrist and had to have surgery done, so he wasn't working out at the time of the alleged conversation. The vehicle the weapons were supposedly put into, was not at the scene. Plenty of pics were taken, and with my eye for cars, I went thru them closely and found nothing. We had 10 pieces of 9mm brass on the ground, most of which were close together. We had blood on the road with positive DNA results too. The things that were consistent were: someone flirted with someone, and it started a feud. The feud escalated into a shoving match, and the tenants of the apartment told the partys to leave and take it outside. Paige was said to have been trying to defuse the situation at that time. They went down stairs, and near the getaway car, Demo-the friend of Paige, was sucker punched.

What we pieced together from there is, Paige pulled a gun, shot the guy who punched Demo two times(M.Bean), once in the front angling away and once in the back. He moved to the next person which we got conflicting stories. I believe Jareem(survived) was shot next, two times as well, once in the leg and once in the arm. From there, the brothers Adam and Andrew were shot once each. Adam, a sickly man with sickle cell anemia and survivor of several strokes before this, was hit in the left side, striking his spine and leaving him crippled. Andrew was hit once as well, thru his left arm, into the left side of his chest, striking his heart and aorta. From there Paige turned to his left again, and stood close to M.Bean, and shot down at him as he laid on the ground, 3x I believe. M.Bean was dead as well as Andrew, due to both sustaining shots directly to the heart. Andrew was around two car lengths from Paige when we believe he was hit. This was at 4:20 in the morning, with street lights. Paige and Demo jumped into their car and fled, Paige driving. A witness threw a rock thru the back window, which was found in the car later when the car was recovered. The brass was found all together or in close proximity to where M.Bean was found. Andrew's blood was found on the road behind his car, and he was found laying beside his car, drivers door open. There was one bullet that struck the back of that car as well. Ballistics showed that they were Hornady Zombie loads(same as critical defense with the pretty green tip), fired from a gun with polygonal rifling, and the primer had a rectangular firing pin imprint. Paige did something with the gun, but it was never recovered. It would be safe to speculate he used a Glock with a 10 round mag based on evidence. The Hornady bullets went thru multiple layers of clothing, and aside from the bullets that struck bone, expanded perfectly, and did a lot of damage. The ones that hit bone had jacket separation, and deformation but still did damage. There was no problem with expansion due to clothing being in layers.

We hashed it out, and decided self defense was not plausible. One juror was hung up on this, and we, well two of us talked it over with this juror for some time before we had an agreement. The last thing I wanted to do, was send a man to jail if this was really self defense. Finally, I had to break it down and analyze it like this. M.Bean could have been seen as a threat, however Paige's life was not in immediate danger and he had proven before that he was good with his hands. He was next to his car, and didn't try to leave. He fired two shots at Bean, more or less kill shots by themselves at close range. Could be argued as self defense but questionable. He then shot and hit another man two times at probably 15-20 feet away. This guy was hit in the leg and arm, and no blood trail to show he moved after he was hit. We could not see how Jareem was an immediate threat. Adam was hit on his left side about 2 car lengths away from Paige. That would put Adam as walking or running at an angle away from Paige. He was frail, and suffered strokes in the past. Again, no way he could be a threat. Andrew, judging by his blood on the ground by where Adam was, was doing the same thing, his left side towards Paige, in a general direction of away from the shooting. Again, no immediate threat. From my counting, only one shot missed, the rest connected. Paige then went back to Bean, and delivered the remaining rounds into Bean as he laid on the ground. Ballistics showed an angled path of entry for these shots. Bean laying on the ground, he is no longer a threat, and in reality, dead already. Only then does Paige flee the scene. After arguing, we decided the force used was unwarranted and excessive. In three of the cases, there was no threat at all. In Bean's case, the excessive number of shots to him, including many with the victim laying on the ground, did not seem consistant with a self defense situation. With the distances involved, not so great lighting, we felt that he had shown pretty good marksmanship, and seemed to go with deliberate aiming, not randomly jerking rounds off, panicking, etc. He had to have had contacts in, to be able to tell the girls from the guys, and not shooting two guys other men, nor any girls. He drove away and never hit anything. If there had been guns there, someone would have shot back. Even one of the victims said he would have, had he had a gun. The car that supposedly had the guns stashed in it, was no where to be found. Police showed up fast, as at least one of the deceased still had a quivering heart beat. All witnesses were present.

Based on all of that, we felt that it was not self defense, and met the standards for murder, and attempted murder, among the other charges. Some of the jurors were gung ho and quick to want a verdict, but were not ready to face the court room when the judge read off the verdicts. It was hard to keep composer in all honesty, hearing Paige's mom and family and friends break down as the guilty verdicts were read. Even he finally showed signs of breaking down. He will get life with no parole. Knowing that ahead of time, the other jurors were stunned at the possibility. Some really are disconnected with reality(they also were liberal lol). Some on here may come up with a different idea of what really happened, some may agree with me though. Either way, being human, I couldn't help but feel for Paige's family as well as the victims' families after it was all over last night. Sure, these people were not outstanding citizens, but they are citizens no less and have rights. No one came out as a winner in this. Everyone lost something. Some jurors sadly had issues understanding that the 3weeks of their life spent on this trial is insignificant to what this means to one man's who life time. The whole thing haunted me, I think, due to the fact a greedy DA could turn a defensive shooting by one of us into something like this. It could be one of us one day at that table. Maybe I'm weak, but the things I saw will stay present in my mind for years to come. The reactions I heard will haunt me for a long time.

[cstone]

So much easier to comment about a news story or rant on the Internet.

Real life with real consequences. You examined the evidence and rendered a verdict you believe in. You have integrity. You will get no judgment or second guessing from me.

Be safe.

[Gman]

Thank you for doing your civic duty.

[Skip]

[snip]

The whole thing haunted me, I think, due to the fact a greedy DA could turn a defensive shooting by one of us into something like this. It could be one of us one day at that table. Maybe I'm weak, but the things I saw will stay present in my mind for years to come. The reactions I heard will haunt me for a long time.

Completely understand. But it sounds like the circumstances here were quite a bit different from a self-defense shoot. There has to be integrity in "the system" (or what's left of it) and it seems to me you just helped maintain that integrity.

[ChadAmberg]

Your testimony of what happened kind of makes me want to have professional jurors. Maybe non-voting ones, but subject matter experts that can answer juror questions maybe. Isn't there a type of law where the jurors can ask questions in court? Not napoleonic code, not what we have, but a third system.

[streetglideok]

We can ask questions in court. After a witness has been examined, cross examined, redirected, and recrossed, the judge asks the jury if they have any questions. At that time you write them down, the clerk takes it to the judge and counsel approaches the bench to review. If the question is appropriate, then it is asked, if not, then they will simply say that question can not be asked. One thing I wish could happen, is the jury asks for the recall of witnesses. During the course of the trial, a witness will be asked a slew of questions, and then you move on to the next. Well, with a trial this long and the large number of witnesses called(I haven't counted on my notes yet), you run into a situation where another witness brings to light new information that may relate to another previous witness. The lawyers can recall witnesses, but they don't always recall the ones you like. Before trial, the prosecution, then the defense reviews the question sheets you filled out earlier that day. They go thru and ask you questions, then bounce your response off other prospective jurors to test their response. I would guess that they do consider the matter in the trial in who they pick. We had 2 nurses on the jury, and 3 people who hunted. We also had a school teacher as well. It helped as we had medical insight, personality insight from the teacher(Paige's mental state, ADHD, school records etc came up) and 2 of us were well versed on firearms. I don't know if that pans out every time, but in this situation we were able to use our own life experience into play(which is allowed). Some women on the jury thought that the pistol was fully automatic, maybe he fired off more bullets than he intended, etc. There were those who had hobbies, or trade skills that were able to be applied to making a decision, and there were some who relied on us to provide our own insight, so they could make a decision. With that, I didn't only discuss things that would make it appear not self defense, I brought up things that would also make it appear as self defense. The last couple of jurors were liberals, guns were bad, and he was guilty. One was also pissy and threw a tantrum because he wanted to go back to work Friday. He wasn't overly concerned about the consequences of what we decide. The other person behaving along side him, was unemployed and had applied for a job with him earlier that week. So much for the liberal political correctness and concern for everyone's feelings. From that, I lost respect for those two people. If it would have affected the outcome of the trial I would have made it an issue to the court, and perhaps I should have anyways. If you are put on a jury for a trial, do not succumb to the selfishness of others, and if it takes days to make a decision, that is what you do.

[cstone]

Your testimony of what happened kind of makes me want to have professional jurors. Maybe non-voting ones, but subject matter experts that can answer juror questions maybe. Isn't there a type of law where the jurors can ask questions in court? Not napoleonic code, not what we have, but a third system.

Most of what you are describing is the job of the trial judge.

In Colorado, jurors have the opportunity to submit questions to witnesses. The questions are written and must be seen by both the prosecutor and defense attorney and approved by the judge prior to the judge asking the witness the question.

I oppose the concept of paid jurors. Most trials do not last very long and the time off without the influence from whoever is paying you is a minimal sacrifice to be expected of citizens. Sitting in judgment over the freedom of another human being is a great responsibility. I wouldn't want anyone to get too comfortable with that power.

[TennVol]

I received a notice last week for potential duty on 2 Dec. My juror number is 476, so I have no idea if my number is low enough to even be required to report to the courthouse. I think it would be interesting to be selected to see what really happens during a trial.

[streetglideok]

I received a notice last week for potential duty on 2 Dec. My juror number is 476, so I have no idea if my number is low enough to even be required to report to the courthouse. I think it would be interesting to be selected to see what really happens during a trial.

Since you're local, let me give you some insight, as you will be at the same courthouse, etc. I've been told that Monday summons give you a higher risk of a trial, instead of a 1 day event. That's what happened to me. Your actual number is irrelevant in your odds of being assigned to a trial or case. You'll call the night before per instructions, and find out if you are on call, or will have to report. They typically call in about 600 people on Mondays. My number was 33XX, and they called from 31XX to 37XX on my first day. If your number is one that is required to show up in the morning, the free jury lot fills up by 8am. I usually got there 7:45 or a little after, and there were 4-5 spots left. You enter the building from the east entrance only. Typical airline security measures apply. After that, you report to W113, which is the hall to the right of where you came in. You check in and they give you a form to fill out with questions on it. There will be a list of names on the wall in front of you, those are judges who need jurors. You watch a video, listen to a magistrate talk, then they will announce a judges name, and call numbers. They are not in sequential order, they are more or less random. I think its about 60 people at a crack, and they take you to a court room and it goes from there. They may call your number and assign you to a judge but tell you to stay until instructed(my situation). As the morning goes on, judges names will be erased as plea deals are struck, etc. Odds are against you getting past this point really. If you get upstairs to a court room, out of 60 people, they will knock that down to 14 for a felony trial, or less, depending on what it is. Somehow, I defied the odds in my situation. Bring a bottle of water to drink. There is wifi in the juror room W113. If you get there too late, you'll have to park in paid parking, and that's $2 unless you are on a trial, then its free. Any questions, let me know.