Ditto Australia (except obviously what went on in the courtroom). Not allowed to identify fellow jurors without their consent either. AFAICT, also indefinitely.
Any idea what this phrase in the linked article means?
Is gang rape for the benefit of a street gang a different crime than, er, gang rape? Or just plain old rape? Was it gang rape because they were members of a gang when they raped her, or because a bunch of them raped her?
Everyone was reasonable and intelligent. While everyone contributed, some were more outspoken than others.
Yes, our foreman (a woman, one of the youngest people on the jury) did an excellent job keeping us on track and well organized (her real job requires handling a lot of paperwork so that was a benefit). It took us about 30 seconds to choose a foreman - someone nominated her, she said “OK” and we all agreed.
What the lawyers were looking for - that’s an excellent question…they both wanted people who could listen and wait until all the evidence is in before making a decision. Both attorneys (plus the judge) repeatedly stressed “innocent until proven guilty” and that the allegations are not facts (given the long list of unpleasant charges) and made sure they got people who would go by that, also reminded everyone that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, so jurors must be OK reaching a decision even if they don’t “hear both sides” because the defense has no obligation to say anything at all. There were some particular things that they filtered out - anyone who had heard of the case, people who couldn’t put aside particular prejudices, women who had been sexually assaulted (which was a pretty high percentage of the jury pool), people who were obviously unable to understand what was going on (or who played dumb). There was a specific question about the hate crime enhancements (can you put aside any personal feelings you may have regarding the victim’s sexual orientation and follow the law for that enhancement).
Juror ages ranged from 23 to nearly 80. Half men, half women. Various occupations including student, several retirees, white collar and blue collar workers.
Yes we did socialize during breaks. We’d go out for lunch in groups (anywhere from 4-8 people), chitchat, that kind of thing. Everyone got along very well, no drama in the whole group.
“Gang rape” meaning “a bunch of people raped someone” isn’t a criminal charge. That is called something like “Rape in concert”.
The whole “for the benefit of a criminal street gang” has a particular legal meaning. As I recall it was an enhancement to many of the major charges such as kidnapping, carjacking and the various sexual assaults. It means that the crime was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of and in association with a criminal street gang, which in itself has a particular meaning. The “benefit” doesn’t have to mean some financial gain, for example it can mean that the acts cause the gang to be perceived as (more) dangerous and thus intimidate the public from testifying against them - an obvious benefit to a gang. Notice that “in association with” means that not all of the participants have to be gang members in the usual sense of the phrase, just so long as the participants are associating with the gang in some way as part of the crime. “For the benefit of a criminal street gang” was one of the items that it took us some time and deliberation to handle properly but I think that we arrived at the correct conclusion.
Just read the article, that’s a pretty grotesque crime. Did you find the testimony of the victim to be instrumental (or even relevant) to your decisions? All other things equal, if she had not testified, do you think the verdict or sentencing would have been any different?
Yes, the victim’s testimony was quite important. It provided a number of important details about the sequence of events, who said and did what and other things. It was backed up by testimony from another witness (the fourth participant, who testified for the prosecution) as well as a ton of physical evidence. The verdicts could definitely have been different without her testimony.
Something that was brought up by both the prosecution and the judge during jury selection and as part of the jury instructions before we began deliberations is that one witness can prove any fact if the jury deems that person credible.
The jury doesn’t have anything to do with sentencing so I don’t know if the victim’s testimony makes any difference there, although I suppose she might make a victim impact statement later (sentencing is February 2014).
Excellent answer, thank you.
The crime happened in 2008, do you know why it took so long to get him on trial? Was it hard to find him, or was he waiting in a holding cell for 5 years?
You’re welcome. Regarding the delay, the defendant was captured soon after the crime; I think the police had them all within 2 weeks. After the trial we asked why the 5 year delay, it was just the time it took for all of the legal maneuvering to play out. They had to build a case against four people, there was undoubtedly plea bargaining, working on getting them to testify against each other and so on. I assume the D stayed in custody the entire time.
Just read that on the very first day when we were sitting there listening to opening arguments one of the other defendants was in another court receiving his sentence; 24 years after pleading guilty to one of the sexual assault charges.
It sounds like there was a ton of evidence that this guy was guilty as charged.
What did he have to say in his defence?
He never took the stand personally. The prosecution did a very good job answering certain questions ahead of time so that the defense would have a hard time calling them into doubt (we had a lot of law enforcement folks testifying about exactly how they transferred evidence in sealed containers to locked evidence storage lockers, confirming their signature on the seals, stuff like that).
The defense had a tough job - the evidence against them was very convincing, they didn’t have anything to present that cast doubt on the important details and as I noted earlier, their argument basically came down to “These guys raped her but we don’t know exactly who did what, and it wasn’t gang activity or a hate crime”. We felt that the evidence not only proved the crimes themselves in a convincing fashion but also proved quite well the various enhancements including the gang and hate crime elements.
As I recall, they tried to show that the defendant was drunk, that rape is so verboten in gang life that this couldn’t be considered a gang crime, implied that the defendant didn’t know the victim’s sexual orientation until after the sexual assault began and that one of the witnesses (the guy who didn’t actually touch the victim) was so close to the two minor participants that his testimony wasn’t believable, he was trying to throw the defendant under the bus in order to protect his younger friends.
The drinking argument got no traction (he was sober enough to do a number of complicated things with no problem, didn’t have any trouble driving a car, etc). While rape isn’t looked on kindly by (some) gangs, the way that the law is written that made no difference. We did not find it reasonable that he didn’t know or suspect the victim’s sexual orientation before the sexual assault began and even if we had he most certainly knew it during the vast majority of the sexual crimes. I think that we all took the one participant’s testimony with a grain of salt (he’s obviously trying to save his own skin and make things as light as possible on his friends) but what he said matched up extraordinarily well with other evidence and the victim’s testimony; that independent corroboration was very telling.
Thanks for that answer.
Strikes me as a case where the system, basically, worked. Mr. Scumbag got a full and fair trial. His defence did the best they could with the crappy factual hand they were dealt. Mr. Scumbag (and his accomplices in their trials) were justly and duly convicted. Presumably, his sentence will keep him off the streets for a very long time.
The only area for criticism is that the trial took place so long after the crime. Of course, there may well be good reasons for that, as you have noted.
Were there any long sidebars where the lawyers and the judge talked in private, leaving you the jury to cool your heels and wonder what was going on? I read about these sometimes in famous trials and I’ve always thought they must be hell on the jury.
Not that we saw, no - there were a number of objections by both sides during the trial. Those were often sustained or overruled by the judge on the spot and things continued, however on more than a few occasions one or the other attorney asked permission to approach the bench and they’d both have a whispered conversation with the judge. These typically didn’t last more than a minute or two and then things would pick up again, sometimes with an obvious change in questioning.
I assume that the complicated stuff gets hashed out before we are seated.
One of the biggest things you notice is that an actual court is much different than what you see on TV or in the movies. Things are much less formal, everyone is human (people stumble over their words, misplace things, smile, etc), there was no pounding on the desk and dramatically screaming “I object, your honor!” Defense attorney was very nice to all of the witnesses.
From my perspective, the system worked extremely well, including being fair to the defendant. I think that we came to a good verdict. Since one of the other participants got 24 years by pleading guilty to just one of the sexual assaults, the defendant is probably looking at a very, very long time behind bars.
Quick update (this is Valgard but for some reason the hamsters think I’ve got a different name today…) - last Friday the 4th defendant in the case (not the individual that we actually had the trial for) pled guilty to carjacking and multiple sexual offenses:
He was 15 at the time but was charged as an adult. He was sentenced to 31 years in prison.
His attorney spoke to us after we had finished delivering our verdict on Humberto Salvador, she had a few questions regarding why we found him guilty on the gang and hate-crime enhancements (overwhelming evidence, basically). I assume that based on this she realized that if her client went to trial he would very likely be convicted of a multitude of serious crimes with many enhancements and he’d be facing an extremely long time in prison. When 31 years is a good offer you know the alternative looked pretty bad.
Sentencing for Mr. Salvador is 2/21, articles indicate that he is still facing life behind bars.
Updating this, the defendant was finally sentenced - over 411 years in prison.
Hopefully this provides some closure to the victim and her family and they can move forward with their lives. I can’t imagine that they’ll ever “forgive and forget” but knowing that all of the offenders are behind bars for a long time and justice was done is something.
As an aside, I’ve never really understood the notion of sentencing someone to hundreds of years in jail. Just a plain old “life, with no possibility of parole” does the trick. Sentencing someone to 300 years as opposed to 400 years seems sorta pointless, even as a measure of societal detestation of the crime - a 300-year crime really isn’t all that ‘less bad’ than a 400-year crime.
Thanks for posting the updates!
I have serious moral objections to this, but you weren’t involved in that jury so I’m just pissing in the wind.
Because when a law is written that describes a ‘crime’, the possible sentences are also codified.
Life without parole is probably not available for rape. But when you rape/gang rape/with hate crimes, you can get consecutive sentences. (First you serve 50 years for this, then you serve 20 years for that) or you can get concurrent sentences (You serve 50 years and the 20 year sentence is done at the same time.) This is important for when someone by be eligible for parole. Depending on the jurisdiction, it may be a percentage of the time you are sentenced. (say 50%) So 411 years means he won’t be eligible to be considered for parole until 205.5 years from now. (or after 25 years if we’re talking about the guy serving concurrent 20 and 50 years sentences)
When I see a sentence like that, I’m always reminded of The Producers.
“We find the defendant incredibly guilty.”