BEYOND STEEL DOORS
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lyle's Writing
  • Resources & Links

Circumventing Justice: An Indictment of the Grand Jury

12/15/2014

 
It is the duty of prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against a suspect when it’s believed he or she committed a crime. In cases where police officers kill unarmed civilians, the prosecution rarely indicts the perpetrator. This is largely a result of the absolute immunity authorities enjoy, but it also speaks to a reliance upon police expertise on the street. When that “expertise” is wrong or above and beyond the call of duty, and involves the death of innocents, an indictment should be a foregone conclusion. Except it’s not.

It seems as if no life is equal to the preservation of police and prosecutorial supremacy in the eyes of the grand jury. “Authority” trumps justice because fairness gets in the way of dominance. Law and order only applies to unruly minorities, the poor and anyone who has fallen out of favor with the ruling class.

In a typical indictment process the prosecutor gathers enough evidence and witness testimony to prove there is a probable cause, then presents it to the grand jury. It’s a simple procedure, and usually doesn’t take more than a few hours, but there is plenty of room for finagling. The sort that gives credence to the cliché a prosecutor has the power to indict a ham sandwich. Whatever evidence is presented to the grand jury is what the members of that secret body will believe. There is no chance for a defense attorney to object or verify the evidence.

If, for example, Robert McCulloch wanted to indict officer Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown it would have been easy. All the prosecutor had to do was keep the defendant out of the courtroom and present the gathered evidence like he did for every other case. The grand jury, had this been a typical day in secrecy with an average citizen charged with a crime, would have indicted Wilson for gunning down an unarmed teen from nearly a hundred feet away.

Instead, McCulloch allowed Wilson to defend himself and present testimony contrary to that of numerous witnesses. An official public trial, where the victim is represented by the state, was circumvented in favor of protecting the integrity of the policy. Only the public outcry over the lack of indictment and demonstrations around the country represented Michael Brown’s interests.

Of course this is not an isolated event.

Eric Garner was choked to death by a New York city cop. Apparently the unarmed man, who was not committing any crime and was surrounded by several cops, presented such a threat to the community the grand jury felt the officer was justified in using a banned choke hold to kill an innocent civilian.

If that was not bad enough, twelver-year-old Tamir Rice was shot dead by a Cleveland cop in the same week. I guess a boy with a toy gun is such a threat to the public the cop felt it was necessary to kill him seconds after arriving on the scene. Couldn’t he have at least told the boy to drop the alleged “weapon”? There has been no decision by the grand jury in this case yet, but current trends make it unlikely the officer will be indicted.

Have I mentioned these three victims were blacks in poor neighborhoods and their killers were white police? Is this, as Thomasi McDonald wrote, the new Red Summer of 1919?

While it may be true these are extreme cases going before grand juries under pressure by the powers that seem to favor the police, there is also an underlying culture that makes America seem more like a police state than a democracy. The indictment process is too shrouded in secrecy to be considered fair and is light years away from impartiality. The decisions made by the grand jury should be reviewable like any other decision made in the courts. There should not be a secret body available only to prosecutors for the express purpose of levelling charges. Such life altering decision should be made by a judge in the presence of a court reporter and defense attorney. Like at a preliminary hearing.

The police have a duty to serve and protect all of the public and uphold the law even when it applies to them. It is the grand jury’s duty to determine when a cop violates that ethos, and the prosecutor’s job to recognize an obvious crime when one is committed in plain view of the public. When these parties fail in their duties and are incapable of distinguishing the differences between them it’s time to reform the process and make certain criminals of every caliber are indicted – whether they wear a badge or blindly support one.

Eliminate Forced Jury Trials

9/29/2014

1 Comment

 
North Carolina voters will soon decide if criminal defendants will be allowed the option of a bench trial. Under the proposed Amendment, which passed the state House and Senate with only a single dissenting vote, suspects can choose to have a trial judge determine the outcome of the case instead of a jury. Opponents of the change will have a hard time gainsaying the new law because it saves time, money and 49 states and the federal government already use bench trials. In other words, this option is only new to North Carolina and voters should consider why it has taken this long to catch up with the rest of the country. Why have defendants been forced to rely on juries despite all of their problems?

I envy the legal systems of states utilizing bench trials. The defendants who got to have a judge decide the case don't have to worry about racial bias in the selection of jurors, nor will there be any concern the trier of facts is ignorant of the law, unfamiliar with crime scene contamination, falsified confessions, statistics, serology, DNA and ballistics reports, psychiatric diagnoses, the fallibility of witnesses, and other expert testimony. That's because the judge is an expert in the practice and knowledge of the law, and he or she is well qualified to deal with anything an attorney brings up.

Juries, by contrast, are generally ignorant of the law even when given uncomplicated instructions about a very small part of it. Jurors are typically the last people to know anything about a case, unless they've researched it online or otherwise heard about it prior to selection. As a collection of "peers" it can only be said they are human beings who are susceptible to suggestion, lies, personal bias, and the misfortune of being forced to do their civic duty. The very last thing an ordinary member of the community should be is a trier of facts in a court room, but this is the legal system we have in America.

It's a shame, really, that attorneys must rely on this group of lay people to comprehend their arguments. Some jurors try real hard to pay attention to the facts, but a savvy prosecutor can manipulate emotions and command the jury's allegiance without ever referencing the truth. No matter how twisted the logic or histrionic their actions, emotional appeals to the unwary work under most circumstances. Take, for example, DNA evidence. It requires expert testimony to interpret laboratory results but a jury will only hear what a prosecutor screams or objects to. The DNA expert is subject to be ignored in the wake of a fiery "I OBJECT!" A judge might better understand the nuances of a particular science, but the jury? Forget it.

If a judge were asked to consider a death sentence as a possible punishment, but first they must determine guilt or innocence, I believe he or she could compartmentalize each phase of the trial and remain impartial. Ordinary citizens (let's stop calling them peers) who think about bills, lost wages, childcare, and a thousand other things besides the facts in a case, are unlikely to pay attention let alone remain impartial. They are not trained jurists, merely victims of a bureaucratic lottery that provides the illusion of fairness on imbalanced scales of justice.

Juries area critical problem plaguing the criminal justice system, a fatal flaw upon which is heaped the most responsibility in the courtroom. Even a barely competent defendant has a better chance of understanding the process simply because he or she has a vested interest. The bailiff, who is little more than basic security, likely knows more about trying facts than any citizen juror unless they've had prior experience. If such were discovered during voir dire the potential juror would be dismissed. Well meaning jurors are supposed to be ignorant, but intuitive enough to listen and be critical of both sides while carefully weighing the facts as they apply to the law. I would rather take my chances playing Russian roulette with five bullets and one empty chamber.

Fortunately, jury trials are not that common. About 90% of criminal cases never go to trial, instead plea bargains are struck to save time and money while keeping the bowels of the system loose. For the unfortunate percentage forced into jury trials they must undergo the farce that is an understanding and impartial jury. It doesn't have to be this way.

The best solution is to eliminate forced jury trials and grant the option of a bench trial in every criminal case -- especially those involving capital murder.

If I am to be compelled into a situation where my life and liberty depend on who is paying attention to the arguments in a case, then I want an expert to decide my fate, not a group of strangers who may not mean well and will probably think of everything but the facts. If whether or not I spend the rest of my life in a prison cell or die by lethal injection depends on what kind of person my trier of facts is than, please God, give me a bench trial every time. At least this way, with one qualified judge, I stand a better chance of receiving justice rather than the mythical version that is the jury trial.

1 Comment

Jury Selection

9/27/2014

0 Comments

 
A jury. As a teenager I vaguely understood this to mean a group of people who would decide if I was guilty of murder and whether this meant I should die for the crimes. My understanding of the process began and ended there.

Jury selection for my capital murder trial was odd in that way getting picked to play dodge ball in grade school is anticipatory of a winning and losing team. Each choice made at the beginning seems measured as you go for favorites and hope the other guy doesn't eliminate the ones you want. In voir dire you have to hope the potential juror who looks and sounds reasonably objective is not secretively some ultraconservative fundamentalist. If he or she is reasonable you also have to hope the DA doesn't use a preemptory challenge. Sitting at the defense table with a bailiff nearby and attorneys bookending the seats to my left and right, it seemed all of the reasonable people were absent or removed for cause or excused by the prosecution.

For those who don't know, the preemptory challenge removes a potential juror from the pool without needing to justify the removal. Both the prosecution and defense are allowed 14 of these free rejections during jury selection.

I was under no illusion this would be a jury of my peers in the sense they were like me, unless living and breathing and human were our only similarities. It was apparent from the pool most of these citizens with jobs, families, and opinions about the case knew nothing about me as a person. They likely did not care what I thought or felt. I could only hope we picked at least six people willing to listen -- even if such a hope was naïve.

The selection took about a week. This one heard about the case and formed an opinion, that one knew a cousin of a friend who went to school with one of the victims. I have to support my family of five, your honor, besides, he looks guilty. The guys in jail for a reason, ain't he? Kill him. He don't need a trial. It's against my religion. I get these really bad migraines. I can't leave my dogs alone for a single moment or they'll be sick with worry. It'll create an undue hardship on my family, your honor . . . . The excuses were many and for those not quick enough with a plausible lie or actually interested in doing their civic duty the first obstacle in their selection was cleared.

Being removed for cause just meant there was a legitimate reason a potential juror could not sit on the jury. In this circumstance it's the judge who agrees to excuse the person from service. Not all of the reasons sounded ridiculous. I was glad at times because the hatred, fear, disgust, self-righteousness, apathy, or anger and cruelty were plain to see on the faces of many -- like war paint or poorly drawn clown faces with mean looks and bulbous noses. One woman was absolutely against the death penalty and all for building more prisons. "Why your honor, if I could," she said "as soon as they arrest a person it's obvious they're guilty so why not put them in prison and leave us honest folk alone?" The scary and discouraging part is considering how many people thought such things and worse, but kept their mouths shut and were picked as jurors.

I guess for juries, "reasonable" means some fantastic ideal that doesn't exist in the sphere of capital murder trials. Not even when the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is used. I should have lowered my expectations. Hope is a foolish thing when you sit at the defendant's table selecting a jury, but you couldn't have convinced me without providing a glimpse into the future.

Once the obviously unsuitable candidates were eliminated the real selecting began. You don't want him - he's a Mason. Or her, she's too eager. Or that one -- he's too white collar. We don't want that one -- her brother's father in law is a cop. The standard my attorneys used to pick jurors was simple: anyone rejected by the prosecution is somebody we want, but since we can't have those we will take whatever we can get. In the end none of it really mattered because the DA had the final say so.

With twelve jurors and two alternates ready the trial was set to begin the following Monday. Both prosecutors wore smug looks the way people accustomed to getting their way do. My attorneys studiously ignored me, talking about where they would eat lunch as they packed away loose papers. Me? I sat dazed and quiet, dizzy from the cocktail of medications prescribed to me by a jailhouse shrink. All of my thoughts and emotions were smothered as if by a thick layer of ice over a deep lake. A small bit of optimism tapped at the barrier preventing me from breaking the surface of that frigid water. It was the faint hope present in anyone who doesn't know what awaits them but keeps their fingers crossed just in case it isn't quite as bad as they suspect it will be.

0 Comments

    Author

    In the time he has been incarcerated, Lyle May has earned an Associates in Arts degree with a social science emphasis through Ohio University; paralegal certification through the Center for Legal Studies; and is currently working on his bachelor’s degree. He has published two articles in The Wing, an international newsletter for death penalty opponents, and is hard at work writing a second memoir detailing his experiences on death row. When he is not writing Lyle enjoys sci-fi and fantasy novels, calisthenics, and dreams of freedom.

    Picture

    Comments

    Lyle welcomes comments to his blog.  However, because Lyle's case is still pending, he will not be able to respond to any questions or comments that you may have.

    Archives

    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    Humanity
    Isolation
    Juries
    Prison Education
    Prisoners
    Prison Reform
    Restorative Justice
    Torture

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.