Dennis Weigand
EDMOND — In September 2004, I wrote about my then-recent experience as a potential juror in a criminal trial. In the process of jury selection it became apparent that many potential jurors were unaware of the basic principal of presumption of innocence. I was appalled, and felt fortunate to be dismissed from the panel.
I have just completed my second experience of a criminal trial, this time as one of the 12 jurors. The second experience was much more positive than the first, despite having to see and hear heinous crimes described. We jurors deliberated thoroughly and carefully, each expressing his or her views freely, but with willingness to listen to others, and moderate those views based on reasoned argument, all in a spirit of cooperation. At the end of the week, I had a measure of renewed faith in our justice system, and a better knowledge of the elements of the crimes committed, and how the law deals with them.
On a Monday morning, more than 400 Oklahoma County residents assembled on the fifth floor of the county courthouse. After a lengthy exhortation by the chief judge on our civic and legal obligations, and the importance of our service, we were called out, in groups of two, three or four dozen to various courtrooms to be briefed on the particular cases to be tried. We were questioned, individually and severally, on our occupations, experiences, attitudes and beliefs, as they might bear on the case. My group ended the first day with a panel of 22 having passed the first cut, the peremptory challenges by the attorneys.
The following morning, eight more panelists were excused “for cause,” leaving 12 jurors and two alternates. The defendant was a man charged with nine counts including possession of child pornography, procurement of child pornography and sexual assault of a child under 18. He had plead not guilty to all charges.
Next, we heard the opening remarks of the prosecution counsel, outlining the facts as she saw them, followed by testimony from prosecution witnesses, including detailed forensic testimony on the pornography evidence, and the medical examination and forensic interview of the 7-year-old victim. We then heard her testimony in the courtroom. Numerous images, and the camera from which they had been downloaded, were found on several computers that the defendant had logged onto, despite attempts to delete them. It was not a pleasant experience.
After the prosecution rested, the defense counsel made her opening remarks. We then heard defense witnesses attempt to refute the testimony of prosecution witnesses and discredit the evidence the prosecution had presented. Through cross-examination and redirect-examination each counselor strove mightily and passionately to advance her arguments. Throughout the trial there were numerous and lengthy approaches by counsel to the bench, all, I trust, in the interest of fairness and impartiality.
After closing arguments, the judge gave us detailed verbal and written instructions on the law and how it applied to the charges made. We then deliberated each count, along with pertinent evidence, and rendered verdicts and assessed penalties for each count. Our decisions were unanimous, not out of “group think,” but out of each juror’s determination to presume innocence, consider evidence impartially, respect differing viewpoints and apply the law fairly. There was a clear consensus that the system had worked and that we had done the right thing by finding that the state had met its burden of proof on each and every count beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this experience, I learned or reaffirmed the following:
• It’s not like Perry Mason or other courtroom dramas.
• In spite of its shortcomings, our criminal justice system works, because it is based on the rule of law, and the willingness of most people to uphold the law.
• Most people want to do what is right, and are willing to pursue that goal using common sense, reasoned argument and respect for differing viewpoints (something that politicians seem to have a lot of trouble doing).
• People who by general appearance and behavior are decent and responsible citizens sometimes have a dark side, which pushes them toward antisocial and even criminal behaviors that they seem unable or unwilling to control. They look just like you or I. They don’t have horns or a pitchfork.
• Sex offenders of the type exemplified by this case, and the people who live with them and depend on them — and yes, even love them — may be in complete denial of the reality of their situation. To acknowledge it and process it is just too painful, too threatening. If, as in this case, the perpetrator is the only source of a steady income and a semblance of stability for an extended and dysfunctional family, then consider how that family may react to the prospect of losing that support, and how the burden on society will increase if the perpetrator goes to prison.
• Expert forensic examiners are critical in this type of case. The sensitively conducted interview of the victim, and the thorough examination of the computers used by the defendant were indispensable in reaching a verdict.
• Sexual assault of children is an especially recalcitrant problem. Attempts to correct the behavior usually fail. That, accompanied by the denial response, results in many repeat offenders. The cases that end up in the criminal justice system probably are just the tip of the iceberg. It seems that the best we can do is to keep them away from the rest of society. Sadly, the state of Oklahoma ranks high in the incidence of sexual assault on children. It is part of the broader problem of domestic violence that cries out for more attention.
DENNIS WEIGAND is an Edmond resident.
