I am feeling juror's remorse. (long)

First, let me say that my jury service is complete, so there is no prohibition against my discussing my service as a juror. Second, I apologize if I leave things out or am unclear so feel free to ask questions.

I am stressed out. I just finished a trial in which I was one of the jurors. The case was an alleged rape of a thirteen year old child by a 39 year old man. We have rendered our verdict and I feel sick about the choices we had to make and I hope I did the right thing. I will outline the case as briefly as I can.

The case centered on a very extended family living in a three bedroom rowhouse in one of the roughest sections in Washington DC. Living in the house were a mother, her six children ages 1 to 13, a grandfather, an uncle and an unrelated unmarried couple living in the basement with an infant. The house was clearly unkempt and uncared for as were the children.

The defendant was accused of accosting the thirteen year old girl at four in the afternoon in the kitchen and taking her down the stairs into the basement and raping her. The rape was allegedly intterupted by the defendant’s girlfriend who caught him in the act and started beating on him. She then found her friend, had the child tell the friend what happened, they went to the mother and the child told the story again. They then called the police who arrived and arrested the defendant. The child was examined at a children’s hospital and no physical evidence was found.

Those are the basic facts as laid out by the prosecution. When they laid out the state’s case it seemed fairly open and shut. I am generally inclined to believe women of any age who allege sexual assault. It sickens me to think an adult could do this to a child and I wish nothing but the worst for any adult who preys on a child. The case was further strengthened by an eyewitness to the rape in progress.

There were problems with the state’s case that came out during the trial. The victim testified and did so bravely. She was however, clearly developmentally disabled. She had a demeanor of a seven year old and a tenuous grasp on the proceedings of the court. Her version of the assault used words she didn’t understand. She used words like penis and vagina that she couldn’t define in any way when questioned. She could not differentiate between the truth and a lie even when given examples and asked to choose which statement was true and which was not. She also identified the defendant’s girlfriend as the only one she had ever talked to about what happened. She said she would do anything the defendant’s girlfriend asked her to.

The defendant’s girlfriend, the alleged eyewitness to the rape was the lynchpin for the state. She was, not to be overly harsh, a psychotic crack whore. She freely admitted that she viewed the child as a rival for her boyfriend’s affection without any evidence. She claimed the victim had sex many times with older men and was after her boyfriend. This despite the fact that it was stipulated that the victim was a virgin. She blamed the thirteen year old victim for taking away her boyfriend. She freely admitted that she had ‘added’ testimony in front of the grand jury to make the story sound better. She also admitted that the defendant had broken up with her that morning and this was the last day she could continue to live in the house. She admitted to being severely depressed and smoking crack. She had numerous convictions for crimes from fraud to cocaine distribution to lying to a police officer.

Aside from her ulterior motives and her state of mind, her retelling of how she came to witness the rape was so convoluted and contrived as to be completely unbelievable. In the end I don’t believe she witnessed much of anything. Given the above facts the jury was unanimous in finding the defendant not guilty of all charges. In my heart though I believe he probably did something to the child. If the psycho witness was never called to muck things up I would have voted guilty without reservation. As it is I was the most reluctant vote for not guilty. I felt he probably did rape her. I could however, envision a number of possibilities that did not involve him raping the girl.

The defendant testified and was articulate, intelligent and appeared to be superficially truthful. He claimed the child was in the basement only because he paid her five dollars to take his bag of laundry from the laundromat and to leave it in the basement. He says nothing happened. He was the only employed person in the case and the only one without criminal convictions. This doesn’t make him perfect, but it does place his credibility in contrast with that of his girlfriend.

I am having juror’s remorse. I feel like I let a predator back on the streets. When the verdict was read the judge scowled and looked distinctly unhappy with the verdict. I spoke to the prosecuting attorney after the trial and he intimated that there were things about the defendant that he couldn’t bring up in open court. I feel like shit. I wish I could have gotten a nice civil trial where I could experience the jury system without the misery of this kind of responsibility.

Has anyone else ever sat on a criminal jury? Has anyone else ever acquitted the defendant? Please feel free to share your experiences. I found it very difficult and confusing to perform a duty for which I have no training or experience. I also found the family in question to be disturbing and heartbreaking. Nobody seemed to care about this little girl and we couldn’t even put away the person who probably raped her. I am sorry for the length and angst but just felt I had to put down my thoughts.

I’d bet you’d feel even more emorse right now if you had convicted with no credible witnesses and no physical evidence.

But it is tough to have to make decisions of that gravity about someone else’s life.

No one should be convicted unless proven guilty. It wasnt proven so dont worry about it.

You dont want to convict an innocent man.

As far as I am concerned, a rapist, or a child pedophile, will never stop, never be rehabilitated. So if he was guilty, he will do it again. Eventually he will be caught again, hopefully by an armed woman who will stop this guy from ever doing such things again!

If it makes you feel any better, the average time served for rape, is only 73 months in this country, despite the “long” sentences stated, and made public. But the fact is, that rapists, on average, are out again on the streets after only 73 months. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Trends in State Parole 1990-2000, USA Today, Page 1, October 24, 2001) Therefore, even if this guy was convicted, he would be out doing it again after 6 years. Your guilty vote only would have stopped him for a short 6 year period. It is more likely that this guy will be permantently stopped from doing such henious crimes by an armed woman someday, than a faulty prison/court system.

You did the best you could, and you made the correct decsion, dont worry about it. If he is innocent, you did good. If he is guilty, he will eventually get his due punishment someday.

Thankyou for being a concerned citizen who did not try to get out of jury duty, and who dutifully did the right thing as a responsible jurur.

It is possible he didn’t do it; the other crimes the D.A, intimated could have been anything from fraud to dealing.

They are professionals with the full power of both local and (this being D.C.) federal governments behind them. This is not a local unknown for ambitious lawyers.

It was NOT your job to find a possible predator guilty; it was THEIR job to prove him guilty.

And the urge to prosecute might have arisen from the unprotected situation the girl was in; sometimes they want head-lines, sometimes they just want to do something about a rotten situation.

I have never sat on a jury, but I have been raped. Know what? It was horrible.
Know what else? Lots of things in life are; in the bar graph of the rotten things in my life, the rape is bundled into the little puce blip labelled ‘Other Bad Things’ (and I’ve had a pretty nice life).

You did not FAIL to find him guilty; the prosecution failed to prove it’s case. And they might have been wrong.

Fruitbat, sister, do not worry. You did right.

Susanna, are you sugesting it is right to not convict rapists so that some poor woman can become a murderer?

I’d rather be raped and beaten a hundred times than murder someone, and I’ve been there.

Jesus, woman, who raised you?

j66, susanann is doing her level best to wear out that one note she has. (This is someone who finds serial killers praiseworthy if they come equipped with ovaries.)

fruitbat, you did the best you could with the evidence you had. I wouldn’t make too much of the prosecutor’s intimations – maybe just sour grapes that he lost his case. As described, it doesn’t sound like it had much merit.

You could only go on what you were presented, fruitbat. The system isn’t perfect but you did your absolute level best in the trial. Trials, most unfortunately, don’t strip aside all the confusing, contradictory human mess landed the case in a court room in the first place. The most you could do was apply your best judgement and heart to what you were given.

I sat a criminal jury, and we acquitted the defendant. (It was “just” a crime-against-property case, but still stressful.) Our gut instinct was that probably–possibly?–he was guilty but it simply wasn’t proven. For all the damning circumstances, there were equally credible explanations to the contrary. I won’t belabour the details, but every one of us on the jury had done exactly what he was accused of, minus the suggestive context. Guilty or stupid? Hard call. It came down to intent…and that wasn’t proven.

It was unbelievably hard, weighing testimony and evidence. It was nothing like condensed, no-brainer TV court stuff. We had to go on what we were given, and try to keep the rules firmly in mind. (The law is a different world, I tell ya.)

My mom was an alternate in a (locally) high-profile child molestation case. It was hideous for her. NOBODY likes crime, especially against children, but determing if a crime’s actually occurred…Lives and hearts ride on the outcome. That one ended in a mistrial because mom couldn’t take that one of the jurors was gloating that he thought the defendent was guilty because of his ethnicity. And so all parties had to go back into the crucible again.

You could only do your best, with a fair heart and mind, fruitbat. Accepting the responsiblity didn’t mean omniscience. You carried out your responsibility as honorably as anyone could wish. The doubts and second-guessing come with the territory. Trying to sort out human messes will do that. You served, did the best you could and did it well. Don’t take on more load than you can reasonably carry.

Veb

Yes, although for a far milder crime that your case. Like you, I let a ratbag off a charge as the evidence was lacking. I’m certain I did the right thing. It may be some consolation in my case that he had already pled guilty to one offense, but not guilty to an aggravating offense, so he was going to be sentenced anyway.

As the others have said, you did absolutely the right thing. Our freedom depends on the state not being able to put people away without proof beyond reasonable doubt. From your account the prosecution did not even get close.

IMO they would have had a better shot with no witnesses, just physical evidence. Presumably there either was or was not DNA from the accused on/in the victim. Presumably she either was or was not still a virgin afterwards. Were these kinds of things not put up in the trial?

AndrewT, both those points are covered in the OP:

fruitbat, throughout your post you say that you think something “probably” happened. That means that you were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, which was the responsibilty of the prosecutor. Your responsibility was to convict only on being satisified that the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO, you carried out that responsibility.

It’s a very stressful process, and leaves one drained no matter the outcome, but the jury system depends on jurors who will hold the prosecution to that high standard, regardless of their own emotional reaction to the situation. Good for you for carrying out that very onerous duty!

Ya done good, fruitbat!

Just having a “sense” or a “feeling” about someone isn’t enough to put them away. Jesus, i have bad feelings about some people i run into in the supermarket!

And the lack of credible witnesses and the lack of physical evidence pretty much makes it a slam dunk for the defence.

He may or may not have been innocent but, as others have pointed out, he doesn’t have to prove his innocence; the state has to prove his guilt. And it sounds like they failed by a long shot.

You did the right thing fruitbat.

You put you personal feelings aside and anlyzed the evidence presented to you.

Apparently 11 other people did the same thing.

First, thank you all. I feel a bit better this morning. As far as physical evidence they had none. The alleged rape was interrupted in progress so there was no ejaculation. No hairs or secretions were detected and the hymen was unbroken. The prosecutor had an expert witness to testify that this was not unusual. It would have been an instant guilty if there was DNA or physical evidence.

Getting images of the “subway” scene in “Unbreakable”…

You may feel guilt right now, but you did the best you could, the best that could be asked of anyone. There are plenty of people out there that might have done the wrong thing and voted this guy as guilty even though the evidence was not there. You choose to take the hard road and do the right thing. There are even more important issues here than the rape of that girl (if such a thing can even be said), namely the defendants right to a fair trial. You gave him that, no one could ask for more. Eventually I hope that guilt turns into pride someday for making a very difficult choice correctly.

It sure sounds like a ‘sour grapes’ claim of rape to me. It’s awfully convenient that, on the day the crack whore was kicked out, she happened upon him raping a developmentally disabled girl. Not a shred of physical evidence, the girl is completely unreliable as a witness, and the witness is completely unreliable as a witness. :rolleyes:

I’m surprised that the DA even brought the case to court. I couldn’t imagine convicting someone of rape with that flimsy ‘evidence’.

Of course not, rapists should be convicted, even though the punishment in my opinion is not enough, but that is me, and obviously not you.

The problem is, that, on average, they only spend 73 months behind bars(See FBI Bureau of Statistics), and then they are again on the streets, to do it again.

I also dont think you should commit murder. I certainly agree with you that you should be beaten 100 times instead of you committing a murder.

If you think that taking convicted rapists off the streets for only 73 months is what should be done, then you are in the majority, I admit. You are in the mainstream. I cant argue that. Most people do think as you do, which is why we only put convicted rapists behind bars for 73 months and then let them loose to do it again, obviously.

I just disagree with you and I think the punisment should be more than that, but I know that I speak for a small minority. We shall agree to disagree.

I dont know where you got that from, I never talked about “murder”, you did.

FYI, in my state, when a woman kills a person who is attempting to rape her, it is justifiable homicide, and in many cases, she is commended by our local police.

Fruitbat, I served on a jury once in a domestic violence case. When the charges were read, I was ready to convict the defendant without hearing any evidence at all, just on the nature of the charges. But as the evidence was presented, I changed my mind. It became evident to me that the woman in the case had invented her story. My fellow jurors agreed and we acquitted on all charges.

Sometimes, just because the nature of the charges are despicable, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the person charged is guilty. I think we did the right thing in my case, and I’m sure you did in yours.

I think you did the right thing, fruitbat. It seems clear from your reccolections of the case that there was no evidence upon which to convict the defendant. It is certainly possible that he could be guilty (if not rape, maybe of something else) but you are powerless to take action if he is. It’s the job of the prosecution to present compelling evidence, as you observed. If it helps, take solice in the fact that if you are ever accused of a crime, your jury will likely be comprised of persons of conscience such as yourself.

Oh, and also, you deserve praise for taking the time to serve on a jury instead of lying to get out of it, as many people do.