Rejected

Yesterday I was briefly juror #7 in a small-time criminal case. The very last peremptory challenge: "The defense would like to thank and excuse Juror #7."

The defense attorney apparently didn't like my answer to his question about the presumption of innocence. To be fair, my answer was probably a bit snarky on account of his unartful question. Trying to concoct a hypothetical situation to which a juror who understood the concept would answer "yes, I would return a verdict of not-guilty," the attorney instead asked a question that left most jurors confused. After explaining that the defendant is legally presumed innocent and that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, he asked, "If you had to return a verdict right now [before the presentation of any evidence] would you be able to return a verdict of not-guilty?" Most of the jurors, because they understood the presumption, didn't answer "no" outright, but hesitated and said something along the lines that they would need to hear more information. The defense attorney had to coax them along before they would say yes, they would return a verdict of not-guilty.

So then he gets to me. Mine was the only unequivocal answer: "No I could not return a verdict of not-guilty. You asked a very specific question about a verdict. A verdict presupposes a trial. There hasn't been a trial so I certainly would not return a not-guilty verdict. Now, the defendant is not-guilty because he has not been adjudged guilty, but I could not now return a verdict of not-guilty." Bam! Juror #7 you're out of there!

I wanted to shake the defense attorney by the shoulders (who looked like this was his first trial) and tell him the hypothetical situation he should have presented was one where there had been a trial during which nobody presented any evidence, where the prosecutor had merely shrugged her shoulders and said, "oops, the dog ate my evidence." Then the jurors could comfortably say they would return a verdict of not-guilty. He lost what might have been a fair and competent foreman (I would have volunteered) and I lost a chance to play hooky from the office for a couple days. Law in practice is far from perfect.

It's Presidential Pardon Season

By any measure President Bush has been miserly with his pardons. I prefer to characterize him as being appropriately prudent. His judgment will no doubt be tested by the much-publicized case of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Campeon. Groups have been lobbying the White House for their pardon, arguing among other things, that an injustice has been done where two border patrol agents charged with enforcing immigration laws are in jail while an illegal immigrant scofflaw is free. Here's my take.

As I understand it, the border patrol agents were convicted of, essentially, committing a bad shooting and covering it up. Whether or not the shooting was justified is another issue, but it has nonetheless become THE issue for those advocating a pardon of the agents. I think law-and-order types ought to take a critical look at what's going on here. These guys became vigilantes when they committed the very serious offense of covering up the use of lethal force by a law enforcement officer (which lethal force was also judged to be unjustified, incidentally). They abused their badge to mete out their own justice without the critical review that justifiably accompanies such shootings. None of us want to see that sort of thing happen to anyone, even if the victim of the shooting is an illegal alien in the act of breaking immigration laws. And here we have to confront our own prejudices: we ought to be just as offended at the actions of these officers irrespective of the victim because the victims of vigilantism are all of us.

In other words, no pardon for these clowns. I know the irony of the situation--officers in jail and illegal alien free--is red meat to conservatives, but remember that policy by emotion is the province of our left-leaning friends. Let's not fall into that trap.