Juror Complains to Judge About Sentencing for Acquitted Conduct

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Thu May 07, 2009 at 02:53:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Don't miss this article in the Washington Times about an upset juror. Here's his letter to the Court (pdf) which is causing quite a stir.

The jury had acquitted the defendants of all but some small drug sales. Juror #6 learned from a press release the defendants could still get 40 years.

I write because I recently saw a press release from the US Attorney’s Office which states that Gregory Bell and Joseph Jones were sentenced to 16 years and 15 years, respectively, “for their roles in this case”. It also states that Antwuan Ball, Desmond Thurston, and David Wilson “each face up to 40 years imprisonment for the narcotics crimes for which they were convicted.”

Can this be true? We as a jury found these individuals guilty of somewhere around 20 instances of selling drugs, but as I remember it, most of these were very small amounts. And this was over a period of nearly 10 years. Now
I’m not a lawyer, but after 30 years of living in the District, I believe people selling small amounts of crack on the street usually end up with probation or only a year or two in prison if they have a previous offense.

[More...]

As you remember, Judge Roberts, we spent 8 months listening to the evidence, filling countless court-supplied notebooks, making summaries of those notes, and even creating card catalogues to keep track of all the witnesses and their statements. We deliberated for over 2 months, 4 days a week, 8 hours a day. We went over everything in detail. If any of our fellow jurors had a doubt, a question, an idea, or just wanted something repeated, we all stopped and made time. Conspiracy? A crew? With the evidence the prosecutor presented, not one among us could
see it. Racketeering? We dismissed that even more quickly. No conspiracy shown but more importantly, where was the money? No big bank accounts. Mostly old cars. Small apartments or living with relatives.

It seems to me a tragedy that one is asked to serve on a jury, serves, but then finds their work may not be given the credit it deserves. We, the jury, all took our charge seriously. We virtually gave up our private lives to devote our time to the cause of justice, and it is a very noble cause as you know, sir. We looked across the table at one another in respect and in sympathy. We listened, we thought, we argued, we got mad and left the room, we broke, we rested that charge until tomorrow, we went on. Eventually, through every hour-long tape of a single drug sale, hundreds of pages of transcripts, ballistics evidence, and photos, we delivered to you our verdicts.

He adds,

What does it say to our contribution as jurors when we see our verdicts, in my personal view, not given their proper weight. It appears to me that these defendants are being sentenced not on the charges for which they have been found guilty but on the charges for which the District Attorney’s office would have liked them to have been found guilty. Had they shown us hard evidence, that might have been the outcome, but that was not the case. That is how you instructed your jury in this case to perform and for good reason.

Juror #6, Jim Caron, age 60, died of heart problems a few weeks after writing the letter. I'm glad it's getting the attention it deserves.

< DEA Raids Medical Pot Shop in California | Thursday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Juror Complains to Judge About Sentencing for Acquitted Conduct | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Seems ridiculous. But this is what blows my mind: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 07, 2009 at 02:59:53 PM EST

we spent 8 months listening to the evidence [...] We deliberated for over 2 months, 4 days a week, 8 hours a day.

10 friggin' months?!

Of course (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Thu May 07, 2009 at 03:08:37 PM EST

The juror has no idea if there were sentence enhancements placed on the defendants, or if they were repeat offenders, so while he is entitled to his opinion, he probably did not have all the facts in hand.

: Nope - this is what is called (none / 0) (#5)
by scribe on Thu May 07, 2009 at 03:42:24 PM EST

"sentencing on acquitted conduct".
In short, suppose the jury finds all you did was some minor stuff, normally punishable by equally minor penalties. The prosecution gets to come back and say "judge, who cares that the jury acquitted the defendant of the multiple murders: he's still guilty of them and you should sentence him as though he was, in fact, found guilty of them." And they don't even have to prove it.
In fact, they can even seek to have you sentenced for what is called "uncharged conduct" - not just conduct you were acquitted of, but even conduct they never charged you with.
And your Supreme Court, in a late 90s decision whose name escapes me now, has put the "good justice seal of approval" on just such sentencing.
It's really an insult to the jury as a group and as an institution, and the jurors.

that's a very eloquent (none / 0) (#3)
by Bemused on Thu May 07, 2009 at 03:09:04 PM EST

letter. I only wish he would have known to write it before the first two were sentenced. I'd like to think the judge might be influenced by such a thoughtful missive.

More cynically, I wonder if DOJ might advise offices to revise their press release policies and stop exaggerating the facts and patting themselves on the back.

IMO Juries need reform laws (none / 0) (#6)
by Saul on Thu May 07, 2009 at 04:41:50 PM EST

Here my take on being a jurist.

I do not know if a person is guilty or not guilty of the allege crime. Maybe he or she deserves to be found guilty and maybe not. But in many cases information that is exculpatory evidence is deliberately with held by the prosecution. Had the jury known of this evidence they might have ruled not guilty instead of guilty.

I as a juror would rather know that information now even if its against the rules rather than learning later that this person has been incarcerated for several years or worse and that I as a juror was responsible for his terrible punishment. A punishment which had I know about it would have made a difference on how I would have voted.

IMO of all the parties involved in a trial, Prosecution, Defense, Judge the jury is the most important of all and should have the same clout as that given to the judge,(who rules like G-D), after all I am the final judge. However many times juries are intimidated with a shaking finger by the judge that they must only use the evidence heard in a trial for fear of jury nullification.

The way I see it I respected the officers of the court in hearing the evidence. As a juror I did not interrupt the prosecution, the defense or the judge. Now its up to me as a member of the jury and as an equal participant of the court, to decide on the evidence or lack of it against the defendant. I have received the judges instructions now just leave me alone and do not question my decision(s) If we the jury in a criminal trial can not agree on 12 votes for or against then please respect our decision and please do not try to influence or change our decision just because you do not like a mistrial. However, many times that is not the case, the judge will come in and say

Not good enough you need to stay here until you come up with either guilty or not guilty.

In most cases he wants a guilty verdict.

We are forced to make a decision we do not agree with. A decision that many jurors know is wrong but changes his or her vote for the sake of convenience or because of intimidation by the judge IMO that is borderline jury tampering by the judge since the judge is playing a direct role in the jury's decision through his commanding orders to the jury to find the defendant guilty.

Yet no one charged Bush of anything when we saw him during his legislative bill signing statements. He spoke directly during the signing of the bill, that none of his agencies involved with the enforcement of this new law should not pay any attention to this bill he just signed. IMO that was prosecutorial nullification done on a major scale.

IMO we need some new laws in favor of juries.

There was a famous case in Colorado (Jeralyn you should know about this one.) It was the Laura Kriho case. This jurist Laura got on the internet and looked up the punishment that the defendant could have received if the jury found him guilty. She did not agree with the harsh punishment and was the hold out juror which caused the mistrial. After the trial she told a fellow juror what she did and that juror ratted on her. They then found her in contempt for her actions. In short the judge at her trial was saying

even if you were never asked in the voir dire about how you felt about drug crimes it was your duty to stand up and VOLUNTEER that information.

First time one was convicted for not volunteering your feelings about certain crime. Longs story short it was appealed and it went to Colorado Supreme Court where she won.

Pertinent excerpt from the letter: (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Thu May 07, 2009 at 05:55:21 PM EST

We as a jury found these individuals guilty of somewhere around 20 instances of selling drugs, . . .

Over a period of ten years (none / 0) (#10)
by lilybart on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:21:20 AM EST

so, 2 a year? small amounts?

why is that phrase "telling?"


: Either "these individuals" means there (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:59:32 AM EST

were 20 defendants against whom the jury returned verdicts of guilty or there were fewer defendants and some were convicted of multiple counts.

Wow (none / 0) (#8)
by catmandu on Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:04:41 PM EST

I feel so safe, the wonderful justice system is putting these guys into jail and letting rapists, robbers and assorted murderers out of jail.
What a great way to protect the public.
What a great way to spend taxpayer dollars.

jury doesn't determine sentence (none / 0) (#9)
by diogenes on Thu May 07, 2009 at 10:21:33 PM EST

The jury's job was to determine guilt, which it did. Is this juror saying that he would have nullified the law if he thought the sentence would have been longer than probation?

A lesson to jurors... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Fri May 08, 2009 at 11:54:47 AM EST

just acquit on all drug charges blind...state prosecutors and the system in general can't be trusted to be sane when it comes to sentencing recommendations and sentencing...it is up to us to maintain a semblance of justice and sanity via the new American way...the sneaky shady way.

: Is this Jeralyn's point? (none / 0) (#13)
by diogenes on Fri May 08, 2009 at 07:14:22 PM EST

Just wondering.