The Case of the Loaded Finger, or...

[Shuckins]

...Why I Hate Jury Duty.

July 27, 2006

There he sat.  A fifty-three year old black male.  Approximately 5'9" tall;  around 160 pounds.

Perpetrator of three armed robberies in the Drew County area.  All committed against area businesses or restaurants.

Modus operandi...place hand inside coat, step behind the counter, extend the hand toward the clerk, and demand money.

At one of the scenes he made off with slightly over three hundred dollars.  At the other, the cash register.

At the third he got nothing, zilch, nada, because one female clerk ran to the back to call 911 while he attempted to intimidate another clerk into giving him money.  She refused, whereupon he left.

No weapon was ever visible at any of the attempted robberies.

Criminal statutes in the State of Arkansas stated that he was a dangerous man guilty of aggravated robbery.  (I heard that laugh.  Shaddup.  This is serious stuff.)  The law states that the mere "representation" of a dangerous weapon is enough to commit aggravated robbery.

When the police arrested him and searched his apartment and vehicle they found nary a weapon.  Only a screwdriver.  No gun.  Of any type.

The prosecuting attorney made a convincing argument for conviction, stating the clerks had no way of knowing whether of not the man was actually armed, and that a manager or clerk in another instance, might have opened fire on him, endangering every innocent person in the establishment...perhaps producing a violent response from the perpetrator, further adding to the danger of the situation.

When the trial was over, the jury retired to a room to consider the facts.  Most of the members agreed that it would be best to elect a school teacher as the jury foreman.  Three were present.  Two were women;  one in her mid-twenties, the other in her late forties.  Both flatly refused to take the responsibility.  All eyes turned to a short, fat, bald, middle-aged man with thick glasses and a weak chin.

I hate jury duty.

Anyway, after ample discussion, we decided to find him guilty of three counts of aggravated robbery.  State law left us little alternative.  Don't ask me to explain this...you needed to be there to understand.  Most of us figured he would get about ten years or so on each count to be served concurrently...with the prospect of early release on parole for good behavior.  We had no idea if he was a career criminal or not because no past record was mentioned during the trial.

So...we marched back into the court room...ole Shuckins presented the verdict to the judge...and we sat down to hear evidence from the perpetrator's family as part of the defense's plea for leniency in sentencing.

His mother, sister, and a niece all presented testimony that he was a good man who had never hurt anybody in his life.  He had once had a high-paying job as a sales-representative for AT&T, but had been introduced to cocaine by a co-worker about 25 years ago, and it had come to dominate his life.  His younger brother, mid-forties, made no excuses for him, stating that he had allowed drugs to ruin his life...but he had never harmed anyone.

He had lost his family, his job, and all self-respect.  He once sold all of his families possessions, including his children's toys to support his habit, stated his brother, but he had never harmed anyone.  Further he stated that members of his family had been "enablers," making it difficult for his brother to shake the habit.

Finally they were through, and it was time for the judge to instruct us on the sentencing phase.

That's when he dropped the bomb on us.  The perpetrator had committed several crimes within a two week period that were all of a similar nature.  Two weeks prior to this trial, he had been convicted of committing a similar crime in a neighboring county.  

This made him a "repeat" offender;  according to Arkansas law, the judge informed us, he had to be sentenced to a term of no less than 40 years and no more than 80 years for each count, and must serve at least 70% of his term before he would be eligible for parole.  If we had gone for the maximum he would have been sentenced to 240 years in prison

We were flabbergasted.  To say the least the jury members considered this to be overkill.  Some forms of manslaughter carry lighter sentences than this.  The man had never committed a "violent" crime of any type before December 26 of 2005.

Did I say I hate jury duty.

Inwardly I was raging.  And so were most of the members of the jury.

We felt we had been duped into giving him a sentence that would see him die in prison.

We went for the minimum and recommended that he serve the sentences concurrently.  Still, it would be 28 years before he would be eligible for parole.

The only hope his family has for early release is clemency by the governor.

When I got home, I explained what had happened to my family....and then stared at the wall for two hours.  I've never felt like such a fool.

I hate jury dury.

[nirvana]

He had what was coming to him, Shuckins.  It may have been a hard decision for the whole jury, but it had to be done.  I hope I never have to serve.   Sir for your services.

[Shuckins]

Thanks nirvana,

Just had to get some of that off my chest.  What a dam waste.

Regards, Shuckins

[CavemanJ]

That does seem a bit harsh for sentencing....

Wonder what the judge woulda done if ya'll had tried to go below the minimum....

Who mandates the sentences?  The state legislature?

[RTSigma]

He deserves every year.

Going out there, making threats, robbing, committing crimes, doing drugs...all his fault. He could have said no, could have walked away, could have been better for his family, could have could have could have. He made the decisions that ended him up in jail.

Its things like these that teach me to do whats right and not what is wrong, no matter how hard the times are.

[Shuckins]

Cave,

Yep...state legislature set the sentence in this type of case, as part of a movement to get control of violent crime.  

For a career criminal with a history of violent offenses...yeah, this would have been appropriate.

But in THIS case, the law tied our hands.

The thing that's wrong with many of our laws is that they're written by lawyers....and create business for them.  That's why so many make no sense.

Regards, Shuckins

[Shaky]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Thanks nirvana,

Just had to get some of that off my chest.  What a dam waste.

Regards, Shuckins

You're right, Shuckins...it is a waste of a life.

But what is important to remember is that YOU, and other members of that jury did not cause that life to be wasted. The convicted man did. He made the choices that gave society, acting through the members of the jury, no choice but to remove him from itself.

All you did on the jury was reach an honest verdict on the nature of the crimes he had commited.

It's sad when any life is wasted, but what would this man had done if not brought to justice? How many lives would he have wasted besides his own?

Thank you for serving. I will probably never get that opportunity, since my job usually means that I will be excluded from sitting on any jury.

[john9001]

in florida if the criminal says or pretends to be armed it is "armed robbery",
the victim doesn't know if the criminal is armed or not.

florida is not a good state to be a criminal, if the criminal uses a gun in a crime it's automatic 10 years, shoot the gun,20 years, if they hit someone it's 25 to life depending on how good their aim was.

[eagl]

Shuckins,

Dude, you've been suckered into caring about someone who made a routine practice of threatening deadly violence to steal.  WTF over?!?!?!?!?!  He's lucky he wasn't shot on the spot by an undercover cop, armed clerk, or concerned citizen.

I think your jury made the exact right decision and I'm very glad he's going to be out of circulation because his behavior is absolutely not compatible with any form of public life.  He made repeated and apparently believable threats against other people's greatest freedom (their life) so I do not think it is a bad thing at all to ensure that he cannot continue such behavior.

He's already been convicted, so do you really think a slap on the wrist would convince him to change his ways?

Or how about this - if he'd gotten off lightly, would you feel better or worse if next time he decided it would be easier if he really did have a gun?  Or what if the next time he did this, the clerk and the counter pulled out a shotgun and blew his head off?  Would that be "justice"?  What if a cop responded and opened fire, and an innocent bystander was hit?  Would you still feel better about him receiving a light sentence?

No, we're all better off with that guy carefully and legally removed from the public arena.  The ONLY thing I have reservations about in this case is that our prison system IMHO violates every shred of human rights by failing to protect the inmates after removing their right to protect themselves.  If society locks someone up, society takes up the obligation to protect that person.  Our society has failed to do that and I think that may be the single worst thing about the US.  Our prisons allow the prisoners to abuse each other and that's a completely immoral situation IMHO.

[majic]

As someone who's been on the other side of the counter having a "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" weapon pointed at them, I have very little pity for the man.  The minimum sentence you folks decided on was appropriate.

[Nash]

Wow... Jury duty sounds like a tough gig. Great post Shuckins, and thanks for sharing it.

[Maverick]

Shuckins,

On one hand I understand you are upset because you had to stand in judgement over this individual. On the other hand I think you are a victim of his attorney and family's attempt to make you feel sorry for him.

Why would you feel sorry for him? He committed 3 armed robberies, presence of the weapon is not necessary, just the threat. The victims of those robberies were traumatised and likely scared out of their wits with the threat of real death, their own.

The prior conviction was likley witheld from the trial as it would be considered to taint the jury in the deliberations for the offenses you were sitting on. That was no doubt at his attorney's insistance.

The claim of the drugs, meh. He is an addict, He made the decision to seek money for drug through robbery, not to seek treatment for the drugs. Drugs are not an excuse for doing something wrong.

The fact that he had a prior conviction 2 weeks prior to his last trial only goes to show he was consistent in committing felonies. The fact that he hadn't hurt anyone only shows it hasn't come up yet. It is not proof that he never would have hurt anyone just that he has not to date that you know of. Do you actually think he would have stopped all by himself? If someone had died during the robbery he would be guilty of felony murder. Would that have fit your definition of hurting someone?

This guy made decisions all on his own. He commited crimes all on his own. He decided NOT to seek treatment to get off of the drugs all on his own. His sentence in prison was from actions he decided to do on his own.

You did not put him in prison, he did. Do not accept guilt for actions he committed. He is responsible for his actions and the results of them you are not.

[lasersailor184]

I have been called up for jury duty in mid august.  I've never been to one, so it should be interesting.

[Rolex]

I think the sentence is too long. He needs to be on the street in just a few years because his services are needed.

What we need are more criminals to support the ever-expanding law enforcement and criminal justice industry.

It seems like ever other person in the country is working for Homeland Security, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the Justice Department, ATF, the IRS, Immigration and Naturalization, Border Patrol, state police, county police, city police, sheriffs department, railway police, subway police, clerks, judges, lawyers, bounty hunters and bond companies, parole officers, game wardens, state, local or federal park rangers, the state local or federal attorney general, prison guards, private security guards and hundreds of thousands of paper pushers and clerks that support them.

Not to mention all the companies (and their hundreds of thousands of employees) who sell products and services to the criminal justice industry. Cars, trucks, tanks, pistols, shotguns, ammunition, assault rifles, uniforms, bullet-proof vests, badges, buildings, computers, desks, chairs, post-it notes, pens, fax paper, boots and belts.

What we need is more drugs to fill the market demand for more criminals.

More effort should be made to throw more people into the criminal justice to increase the rate of increase of hiring and spending. Heaven forbid the lowly finger-pointing criminals ever figure out how to steal big money by getting an MBA or an accounting degree, or even getting themselves elected to Congress.

[Nash]

Oh SNAP!

Nicely played.