Three Days on a Jury — Beth Groundwater: Day Two

Today, my guest mystery writer Beth Groundwater continues her report on serving on a jury in Colorado. Here’s her account of Day One.  

***

Three Days on Jury: Day Two

Yesterday, I began telling the story of my recent wonderful (for a mystery author) experience of serving on a jury for a criminal trial. I’ll continue that story with a description of the second day of the trial today, then conclude tomorrow with the last day of the trial, including the jury deliberation. The six charges we were to decide on included: assault in the third degree, criminal mischief (vandalism), theft, disruption of telephone service, false imprisonment, and marijuana possession.

Over the course of the second day of the trial, we heard from the prosecution’s remaining witnesses. These included the victim’s two housemates who found her and called for police and an ambulance. Both of their stories supported the responding police officer’s version of events. Also, the officers who arrested the defendant the day after the alleged assault were called to testify that they found marijuana and a pipe in his backpack. They also said the defendant claimed that the victim hit him on the head with a wine bottle and attacked him with a staple gun during the fight. And, we heard from the owner of the house how much it cost to fix the window.

One witness was a woman who had been attacked by the defendant in the past. We were instructed by the judge to not use her testimony to judge the defendant’s character or to prove guilt in the current case. We were only to look for similar patterns of behavior. And the pattern was eerily similar, both in the method of attack (punching her in the face to get her on the floor and repeatedly kicking her) and taking away the means to call or go for help (in this other case, by throwing the victim’s cell phone, car keys, and winter coat onto the roof of the condo complex). We were not told during the trial that the defendant served a three year prison term for this attack, but we learned that later after the trial from the judge.

The last witness was a psychologist who is an expert in domestic abuse. She testified for a very long time after her expertise was established. She did not know the details of this case, but she discussed domestic abuse cases in general. Domestic abuse can only occurs between two people who have an intimate (sexual) relationship, so does not include abuse between people who may be related or share a home, but don’t have an intimate relationship.

The expert explained the cycle of domestic abuse (four stages: escalating tension, attack, honeymoon period, relative calm) that repeats over and over again. She also said that victims often recant their story because they want the abuse to end, not the relationship. And, she said that victims who are under stress and in pain right after the attack are likely telling the truth then because they’ve had neither the wits nor time to construct a plausible story.

Throughout the second day, the defense attorney poked away at the prosecution’s case, showing where evidence was not collected (eg. the broken laptop, which disappeared later), where police records were incomplete or confusing (the amount of marijuana was recorded in grams in one place and ounces in another), etc. She also chipped away at the reliability of the witnesses, particularly the victim, and of the housemates, who later had arguments with the victim and were no longer friends of hers.

The prosecution rested their case late in the afternoon, and the defense called no witnesses. Again, the judge told us this was not required or needed. We were dismissed for the day, admonished again not to discuss or research the case, and told to report back the next morning for closing statements and deliberation.

***

Beth Groundwater writes the Claire Hanover gift basket designer series (A REAL BASKET CASE, a Best First Novel Agatha Award finalist, and TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET) and the Rocky Mountain Outdoor Adventures series starring whitewater river ranger Mandy Tanner (DEADLY CURRENTS and WICKED EDDIES). The third books in both series will appear in 2013. Beth enjoys Colorado’s many outdoor activities, including skiing and whitewater rafting, and loves talking to book clubs.  TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET will be re-released in trade pb and ebook on November 8th. You can find Beth online here.

(These posts originally appeared on Beth’s own blog.)

The Saturday Writing Quote

Setting is hugely important to me, as reader and writer. So I liked this observation from a young short story writer who writes of her native Nevada:

“Early on I was often crippled about being able to write about anything. … Eventually I decided to choose place as my form. … By the end of the collection, I was actually looking at a map and thinking, where haven’t I written about? I couldn’t really start a story without understanding where it was set–because I can’t really start to think about who these characters are and what kind of trouble are they going to get into if I don’t even know what they see when they get up in the morning.”

— Claire Vaye Watkins, author of the story collection Battleborn (Riverhead, 2012), quoted in Book Page, August 2012

 

Three Days on a Jury — Beth Groundwater reports

My guest today, and for the next two weeks, is mystery writer Beth Groundwater. Earlier this year, Beth served on a jury in Colorado–an experience I’m not likely to have, at least while I’m still practicing–and shares her experience with us. 

***

Three Days on a Jury: Day One

Recently I had the wonderful (for a mystery author) experience of serving on a jury for a criminal trial. The three-day experience gave me an inside look at the Summit County, Colorado, criminal justice system, and at the lives and tribulations of what my mother would call “not our kind of people.” I’m going to blog about my experience today and the next two days, so I can share some of what I learned with other mystery authors and with mystery readers. I hope you find my experience as interesting as I did!

The trial was a case of domestic abuse (the local newspaper article if you want to read the verdict now is here.) About three weeks prior, I received a jury summons to show up at the Summit County Justice Center on Tuesday June 26th, at 9:30 AM. After checking in and waiting for another twenty minutes or so, those of us who responded to the summons were all ushered into a courtroom. The judge informed us that 90 people had been summoned and 37 had shown up. She was not pleased.

Then she went through a list of reasons why someone could be excused–doesn’t live in the county anymore (a few college students who were still away for summer classes fit this category), taking care of a disabled person, etc. Then she said the case involved domestic abuse and asked if anyone felt they could not be impartial in such a case. A few hands went up, mostly women, and she asked those people to discuss why with her privately in her chambers. Most were excused. That left just over thirty of us in the room.

Then twenty-two names were called for people to come forward and sit in the jury box. I was thrilled when I was one of them, and I began thinking that maybe I would actually get a chance to serve. The prosecution and defense could each choose five jurors to dismiss, and the remaining twelve would serve. Next, each juror answered a standard set of questions, such as which town we lived in and for how long, if we were married or had children, our occupation and those of our spouse, children and parents, if we knew anyone in law enforcement, our hobbies, sports and interests, what we liked to read and watch on TV, and what sites we visited on the Internet. The judge usually had at least one clarification question for each juror, expounding on anything that might show a preconceived bias.

Then the prosecution (two Assistant District Attorneys working together) and defense (a paid versus court-appointed lawyer) had about a half hour each to question the jury as a whole on issues or jury members in particular about their background or views. One of the Asst. DAs knew my name and about my RM Outdoor Adventure mystery series, but he was surprised that Beth Groundwater was my real name, not a pen name. I was asked WHY I wrote mystery novels, probably to see if I had any bias for or against cops or criminals or if I had preconceived notions of justice. I answered that I had tried other genres, but that mystery felt most comfortable for me, probably because I was a puzzle person.

When one man, who had previous experience with domestic abuse, said he was very interested in serving on the jury, one of the Asst. DAs asked almost in jest if anyone else really wanted to serve. I deliberately did not raise my hand, because I did not want to appear overeager. That man was dismissed from the jury, but I was not. One interesting question we were asked by the Asst. DAs was what our reaction would be if they brought forward a witness that they were pretty sure would lie to us.  There were some “Huh?” looks from some jurors at that point, as we wondered why they would call a witness they expected to lie on the stand. We found out later!

Since we’re a low-population county, quite a few people knew law enforcement personnel or members of the court system. Also, one man’s sister had been a victim of domestic abuse. As I listened to these other jurors, I thought, okay that person will be dismissed over me. And that proved to be the case. The defense and prosecution had more compelling reasons to dismiss ten other jurors, and at the end of the voir dire (jury selection) process, I was still in the box!

We were sworn in, admonished not to discuss the case with each other or other people, not to do any research related to the case, and dismissed for lunch. After lunch, the trial began and the prosecution presented their opening statement. There was no opening statement from the defense, and the judge instructed us that the defense is not required to provide an opening or closing statement, or call any witnesses or present any evidence. Nor is the defendant required to testify. The onus of proof is on the prosecution (the defendant is presumed innocent before proven guilty), and the defense doesn’t have to prove anything.

We heard testimony first from the police officer who arrived on the scene after 911 was called by two of the victim’s housemates who came home one night in December, 2011 to find her laying in a fetal position on the sofa. The story that the victim told her roommates and the officer was that she and her boyfriend were drinking at a bar and got into an argument there. He returned to her place and waited for her while she finished her beer. When she got home, the argument began again and got physical. He punched her in the face and repeatedly kicked her, threw a skateboard through her bedroom window, broke her laptop computer, and stole her cell phone and winter coat so she could not call or go for help (the house had no land-line). The police officer had taken photos of the victim’s bruised face, the broken window, etc. and these were entered as evidence.

Then, the victim got on the stand and told a completely different story. She couldn’t remember what she said to the police officer, claimed that she bruised her own face by tripping and falling on the stairs, and that during the argument she threw her own laptop computer through the window. Even when pressured by the prosecutor, who repeated statements she made to the police officer and which he recorded in his report, the victim stuck with her story. When asked by the prosecution if she still loved the defendant, she said that yes, she still cared for him and wanted to be with him, but was prevented from being with him (we later found out, by court order).

I went home that afternoon thinking, well THAT was interesting! I had many, many unanswered questions from the conflicting accounts of what happened.

***

Beth Groundwater writes the Claire Hanover gift basket designer series (A REAL BASKET CASE, a Best First Novel Agatha Award finalist, and TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET) and the Rocky Mountain Outdoor Adventures series starring whitewater river ranger Mandy Tanner (DEADLY CURRENTS and WICKED EDDIES). The third books in both series will appear in 2013. Beth enjoys Colorado’s many outdoor activities, including skiing and whitewater rafting, and loves talking to book clubs.  TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET will be re-released in trade pb and ebook on November 8th. You can find Beth online here.

(These posts originally appeared on Beth’s own blog.)

Huguette Clark — an update on a tragic heiress

I’m intrigued by the on-going saga–the only word–of reclusive Copper King heiress Huguette Clark, who died in early 2011 at 104, leaving what was originally asserted to be a $400 million estate–and about 400 million questions. (See my earlier posts on her Gilded Age apartments and jewels, the alleged mismanagement of her assets, before and after her death, and the claims by heirs that they had been prevented from seeing her and that a later will should be rejected in favor of an earlier will, on grounds of undue influence.) Reporter Bill Dedman of msnbc has been following the story, and now reports that the accounting filed in early October shows about $306 million in assets — with an additional $44 million in gifts potentially subject to repayment (or “claw back”).  He also reports that the will challenge will probably not go to trial later this year, as planned, but will probably be continued (the legal term for postponed) until early 2013.

Take a look at the Msnbc story for photos of the jewelry, homes, and apartments, and other assets. Curiously, a sheik’s bid for one of her three Manhattan apartments was rejected by the building’s board, primarily for privacy reasons. The other two have been sold.

Out here in Montana, where the money was dug out of the ground in the form of copper, fascination is high. So is the sympathy. Tourists in Butte are apparently dropping by the Clark family mansion, now a B&B, in record numbers.  Take a peek, and you’ll see why.

 

Flathead River Writers’ Conference — character sheet

What a great time I had last weekend at the Flathead River Writers’ Conference in Kalispell! In my Sunday afternoon craft class on  character, I detoured a bit to talk about how I develop my  characters and use that detail to flesh out my idea. I referred to the character sheets I create for each book, but alas, did not have a copy to share. Here are the topics I explore for each character: 

– Physical characteristics

– Family & friends

– Personality traits & their source

– Work

– Quirks

– Images: is there a particular image associated with this character?

– Goals & motivation – generally & in this novel

– Conflict, both internal and external

– Growth: General story line

(A few of these items, and other aspects of my method — such as it is — are drawn from Jess Lowery’s Pyramid Method, which I discovered in The Writer, February 2011; the article is reprinted by the Mystery Writers of America — Jess teaches it in a class at the traveling MWA University.)

The “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” laws in action

A recent shooting in Kalispell, Montana raises both the “Castle doctrine”–that a resident of an occupied structure is justified in using deadly force to resist an intruder if he or she believes it’s necessary to prevent the intruder from assaulting him or her–and the “stand your ground” law–that a person who is lawfully in a place and is threatened with bodily harm does not have a duty to retreat or call law enforcement before using force. 

Writers interested in using either of these doctrines in their stories should read this article in the Daily Inter Lake, which includes a detailed summary of the Flathead County Attorney’s report to the Kalispell Police Chief, declining to prosecute.  It’s not often that we get to see a prosecutor’s analysis of the facts and law behind a decision to prosecute or not.

 Then read this interview with the dead man’s wife, who had been involved, at some level, with the shooter, witnessed the shooting, and strongly disagrees with the decision not to prosecute.

Update: And here’s the Inter Lake account of the prosecutor’s press conference, discussing his decision-making process.

The old Flathead County Courthouse — still a county office building. (Photo from a postcard collection at the Montana Historical Society.)

Judicial misconduct and appointing a new federal judge

Last fall, I wrote about two examples of judicial misconduct, one involving a state court judge charged with fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs, the other a federal judge under investigation for sending a racist e-mail about President Obama from his official e-mail account. Now, the Billings Gazette now reports that the federal judge is retiring–or in judicial terms, “taking senior status.” Senior judges may continue to work and hear cases as much as they want; in fact, the continued involvement of senior judges is critical because the case load is so high. The investigation continues, despite the retirement.

The article provides a good description of the process of nominating a new federal judge and the factors that go into it.

Update: The federal judge initially announced that he would take senior status, but the Billings Gazette reported in April 2013 that he would retire fully on May 3, following a March 15 order in the judicial conduct investigation, which is confidential pending an appeal.