Honoring the Saints

Belogradshick, Bulgaria - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman

Having never witnessed a progressive cause it could not support, the Fresno Bee is a good example of not only how the news is reported but what is reported and where it is displayed in the newspaper.  When check out time arrives, we ordinaries are remembered with a few words in the obituary section, tucked away in a cranny well back from the front page.  There is an equality in death and in the obit section; individual articles and pictures may vary in size, but a eulogy is a eulogy.  Does it really make a difference who has the biggest grave stone or mausoleum?  Politicians and the rich and famous are notable exceptions, but what is the Bee’s infatuation with the deaths of personal injury and criminal defense attorneys? 

When the Grim Reaper visits, few question front page publicity for a judge or legal scholar, but why the same treatment for professional litigators who sue anyone anytime, and whose phone numbers can be found in the back pocket of every dead beat in the community?  It’s not due to the public’s respect for the profession.  Just as nurses and firemen consistently rate as the most respected professions, the legal profession doesn’t fare so well with personal injury and criminal defense attorneys hovering at the lowest strata.

Perhaps even Joe the Plumber sees through the victims’ rights and reverence for the Constitution arguments and understands this stagecraft increases the cost of all products, services, and health care and is responsible for the explosion of regulations and rules.  Trial attorneys are bright people and realize tort reform, loser pays, and the broken jury system pays the bills, and the Bee clearly stands in their corner.  

   Belogradshick - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Howard's Delemma

Utah Desert in Winter - photo by Sam Sturman

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

Years ago my friend Howard was summoned to jury duty for a child molestation case. The accused, a thirty year old male with two prior convictions for similar crimes, allegedly sexually assaulted a ten year old girl who lived in the house next door. Over a year's period he repeatedly raped her and insured her silence by threatening to kill her and her mother if she reported the crime.

Howard is a successful businessman, and like many of us who do not receive jury duty compensation from an employer, was reticent to get involved in a long criminal trial. His attitude abruptly changed during the jury selection process when he saw the defendant. Howard made a decision to become a juror and when the judge asked him if he had any preconceived notions, he replied, “Your Honor, I believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”

Within the first few days of the trial Howard concluded it would be a short affair since the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to a guilty verdict. The testimony was graphic, and the defendant's demeanor so sullen and callous that Steve could not conceive of any ambiguity surrounding the case. The defense attorney did his best to obfuscate the facts, belabor the proceedings, and proclaim his client was the actual victim. The case drug on for over two weeks, and at the end of each day Howard felt ill when he left the courtroom; the crimes committed against the little girl were so repulsive and cruel that when he returned home it was impossible for him to sleep at night.

At last the case went to the jury. The facts and testimony were compelling, and Howard assumed the twelve jurors would come quickly to a guilty verdict. Anticipating an early day and a fast decision, he called his wife and asked her to make dinner reservations at their favorite restaurant. As foreman of the jury, Howard asked for a secret ballot to determine where the jurors stood. He was shocked when he counted ten guilty and two not guilty votes. This was not like the movie Twelve Angry Men where one impeachable jurist sides against his prejudiced peers and ultimately wins an acquittal for a wrongly accused defendant. There was nothing the defense attorney or the defendant presented which supported a not guilty verdict. On the contrary, the prosecutor fashioned a logical and well documented case. Multiple witnesses corroborated the victim's story, and the physical evidence substantiated their testimony. How could two people listen to the same proceedings and vote not guilty?

It was late at night and the jury was at an impasse. Some jurors spoke eloquently about the soundness of a guilty verdict and asked the two dissenters to identify themselves. It was not until the next afternoon that one of them spoke, “I voted not guilty because I think the Devil made him do it.”

Howard responded softly but firmly, “This jury is not concerned with whom made him commit the crime. Our job is to decide whether he did it or not.”

Several others echoed the argument and within an hour the man relented – 11 guilty and 1 not guilty.

It was not until late the following day when the last hold out identified herself. She was a widow in her 70's from a small farming town nearby. Despite prodding from her fellow jurors, she refused to change her vote. She reasoned that a guilty vote would constitute the defendant's third strike which mandated a life sentence without parole. She thought the punishment was too extreme.

Finally, Howard had enough. “Madam, do you have a granddaughter?”
“Yes, I have several.”
“Do you have one about ten years old? That's the same age as the girl we have heard about for the last three weeks.”
“Yes.”
“If you vote not guilty because you disagree with the punishment set by the state, you're wrong. When you interviewed to be a juror, you knew this was a three strikes case, and the judge made it explicitly clear a guilty verdict meant mandatory life imprisonment.”
“I can't do it. It's not fair a young man should have to spend the rest of his life in jail.”
“Do you think he is guilty?”
“Yes, but I can't be the one responsible for such an extreme and harsh sentence.”
“Very well then. Go ahead and vote not guilty, but I'm going to find out where your ten year old granddaughter lives. When the defendant goes free, he will have no place to stay. I'm going to rent the house next to your granddaughter's house, and let him live in it free of charge.”
“You can't do that!”
“Oh, yes I can. I'm a businessman and make a lot of money. I will make it happen. It is the first thing I will do after we leave this courtroom.”

A few minutes later the judge received a note in his chambers from the foreman. The jury had arrived at a unanimous guilty verdict.