 |
| Angelika/Mike Schilli |
|
Michael A letter from the "San Francisco Superior Court," the city's highest court, arrived by mail the other day. In it, Angelika was sternly ordered to participate as a juror in a trial. As you probably know from American TV series (like "Law and Order"), in the United States, it is not the judge who decides whether the defendant is guilty in a criminal trial, but rather a randomly selected group of twelve laypeople.
The economics/law teachers among you might be shouting: Haha, but in Germany, there are also lay judges! That's right, my dear ones, but have you ever read in the newspaper that a case was overturned by a lay judge? Theoretically, the German lay judges are on par with the presiding judge and in some cases even capable of overruling the judge.
In Germany, however, according to "Ehrenamt Schöffe", there are only 61,000 lay judges -— meaning just one for every 1,500 citizens. I suspect that mostly those who just say, "Yes, Your Honor!" are chosen. Additionally, it's easy for professional judges to overwhelm laypeople with complex legal jargon.
In the USA, it is actually "the people" who decide instead of the judge. According to the Constitution, this is a group of "peers," meaning equals. I find this to be one of America's most impressive achievements. The people thus have a final right of objection in the application of laws. Of course, this raises a whole series of problems: for example, state and defense attorneys regularly put on full-blown theatrical performances during trials to win over Mr. and Mrs. Average from the jury. While judges in foreign legal systems often face little control and can therefore fully indulge their desire for recognition, a judge here in the USA does indeed lead the proceedings, determines which witnesses and evidence are admitted, but generally has to bow to the jury's "guilty/not guilty" verdict. The judge can then independently determine the sentence.
In a trial, after the opening statements from the prosecution and the defense, the jury is presented with the facts. Only what is explicitly stated by witnesses or experts during the trial actually counts. Even if the case has already been on television and, for example, a video of the incident exists, this does not automatically qualify as evidence. If the judge decides, for instance, in response to an objection from the defense, that the weapon with the defendant's fingerprints is not admissible as evidence (e.g., because it was obtained through improper police methods), then the jury must disregard its existence.
If a witness on the stand answers the prosecutor's question, "Where was the defendant at the time of the crime?" with "At my house. We have an amazing collection of weapons," the defense attorney would shout, "Objection, non-responsive!" because witnesses are only allowed to directly answer the questions posed by the prosecutor or the defense attorney and not add anything extra. If the judge then says "Sustained," the part about the weapons collection is stricken, and the jury is instructed by the judge to act as if they never heard it.
Or if the defense attorney asks the witness, "Isn't it true that the defendant is an angel who wouldn't hurt a fly?" the prosecutor would shout, "Objection, leading!" (the witness is being "led," meaning a specific answer is being suggested). The judge would most likely say "Sustained!" and instruct the witness not to answer the question and the jury to draw no conclusions from it. If the judge says "Overruled," the question is allowed, and the witness must answer.
This can complicate a trial that may last for months with hundreds of objections, which are either overruled or sustained, especially for Joe Sixpack on the jury bench, who has to remember what counts and what has been dismissed.
If the prosecution or the defense needs to prove a claim, they must bring someone to testify about it in court. It is not sufficient to have a letter from a state-certified expert or to rely on something that is generally known, such as the fact that the highway 101 is extremely busy at six o'clock in the evening. In the latter case, a police officer would come to court and testify under oath: "Highway 101 was extremely busy on Monday, March 7th, at six in the evening." Otherwise, it doesn't count.
Even if a juror knows something from the newspaper, is a crime expert, or knows the defendant as a lousy crook, they are not allowed to use this knowledge in their decision-making. Jurors are only allowed to consider what they learn during the trial. For this reason, in high-profile cases (such as the O.J. Simpson case from a few years ago), they are often sequestered to ensure that they do not watch television or read newspapers. In a trial that lasts for months, this is akin to a prison sentence.
The jury system also sometimes leads to excessive damage claims. Some time ago, there was a case where a car manufacturer had placed the fuel tank in an unsafe location for cost reasons. As a result, a car caught fire in an accident and several people were burned to death. The anger of the relatives over the company's business practices is understandable; they sued for damages.
The jury members saw it the same way and wanted to see the company suffer. Following the motto "It doesn't cost anything," they agreed that the company should somehow pay 65 billion (!) dollars. I believe that's the defense budget of the Federal Republic of Germany. Or like the woman who burned herself with McDonald's coffee and received several million because McDonald's hadn't written "Caution, hot!" on the coffee cup. The jury members probably thought: I've been sitting here in court all day, let's make it really exciting! By the way, sometimes the amount is later reduced or the verdict is completely overturned; the judge is allowed to do that if it's too ridiculous, at least in California.
The judge explains to the jurors at the end of the trial in relatively plain English and in great detail what their task is and what they are allowed to consider. For example, everything the prosecutor or the defense attorney said is irrelevant —- only witness and expert testimonies count. The jury's task can be summarized briefly: they determine whether the prosecutor has succeeded in proving the defendant's guilt "beyond reasonable doubt," meaning conclusively. If there is the slightest doubt, the verdict must be "not guilty."
After attending the entire trial (jurors are not allowed to ask questions, only to observe) and being instructed by the judge about their duties, the jury members retreat behind closed doors to reach a unanimous verdict (at least in California; different rules may apply in other states). If they fail to do so because one juror disagrees, it results in a "hung jury," and the trial must be repeated.
The jury must limit its verdict to the existing legal framework. A juror cannot say, "I don't like this law, so I will say 'not guilty,' even though the scoundrel clearly violated this bizarre law." The judge will also instruct the jury that the potentially imposed sentence should not influence the decision of 'guilty' or 'not guilty.'
But of course, all the instructions are of no use against the entrenched prejudices of the jurors. This happened in the case of Rodney King, a Black man who was brutally beaten by white police officers in Los Angeles. The jury was all white and acquitted the officers, even though a video tape showed the scene in detail. However, the prosecution's strategy, which did not even call Rodney King to the witness stand, was also somewhat hollow. The next day, racial riots broke out in Los Angeles.
On the other hand, the black football player O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murder of his wife, even though the facts overwhelmingly pointed to a conviction. After the verdict, a black jury member saluted the defendant with the "Black Power" gesture.
Judges are directly elected by the people here, by the way. You often see election posters with slogans like "Vote for Judge Smith!" whereas in Germany, it goes through connections to the state government, which either nominates their socialist buddies or anti-abortion hardliners.
The court also invites many more jury members than are actually needed. This is because both the prosecution and the defense are allowed to reject an unlimited number of people for valid reasons and a limited number for purely tactical reasons. This takes place before the trial, in the so-called "Voir Dire." For example, if the death penalty is at stake in a trial, the first question to a potential juror is: Are you against the death penalty? If the answer is "yes," the person is immediately dismissed. This is considered a "valid reason" in the procedural rules -- however, it means that in such trials, only 65-70% of the population is represented, because the rest are against the death penalty. Lawyers also try to exclude people with strong personalities, as they can sometimes create group dynamics and cause unwelcome surprises. These are strategic reasons.
The excellent book "Last Chance for Justice" by Laurence Geller and Peter Hamenway describes in detail how the process works and the conflicts that can arise. Normally, the trial takes place near the location of the crime. However, if it seems that a fair trial is not possible due to local bias, it can be moved elsewhere.
This happened in the case of the unpleasant dog-owner duo in San Francisco, whose fighting dogs killed a resident. Almost any twelve-member group of San Francisco residents would have sentenced the two fools to the maximum penalty because the case caused such outrage. To ensure a fair trial according to the American Constitution, the case was moved to Los Angeles. The dog owners were still convicted.
Since there are always a bunch of ongoing cases, people are constantly being selected to sit on some jury for the next trial. And the selection is truly random -- everyone from punks to company executives can be chosen. Once selected, it's hard to get out of it. It's common for someone in the company to be absent because they have to fulfill "jury duty." At AOL, there's even a checkbox for this when filling out a leave form. Employers are generally not required to continue paying wages, but they cannot fire an employee for fulfilling their civic duties. Depending on the state, there might be compensation from the government, but usually not more than a few dollars a day. And it's clear that a year-long trial can naturally spell the end for a career that had just begun hopefully.
The summons, by the way, indicates that proper attire is desired. It is advised against wearing tank tops, shorts, or flip-flops. Anyone who already envisioned Angelika serving on the next murder trial like O.J. Simpson's, perhaps even speculating about a televised broadcast, will unfortunately be disappointed: only American citizens are eligible to perform this duty. The reason Angelika still received a summons is that there is no registration requirement in the U.S., so the city of San Francisco has no idea who actually lives there. As a result, they tap into the DMV database and send summonses to all driver's license holders without a criminal record. Since this includes many "Resident Aliens" (i.e., permanent residents without citizenship), the summons comes with a form allowing recipients to indicate that they fall into this category. This is exactly what Angelika did.
Quite a pity, really! It would have made for great newsletter material!
Since even the newsletter reporters are not allowed to take photographs in the courtroom, we simply took the images from Angelika's favorite TV series "Law & Order," which, as a lawyer once told us at a party, depicts quite realistically how typical criminal trials proceed.
Just like in "Law & Order," it rarely comes to a trial in reality, because most of the time the prosecutor and defense attorney make a so-called "plea bargain." The prosecutor proposes a sentence, typically slightly below the usual penalty, which the defendant and their attorney accept because the laws have become so incredibly strict that the jury usually has no choice but to convict based on the legal situation.
For example, in California, the "Three Strikes" law applies: Just like in baseball, where "three strikes" means the batter is out, for someone who has already been convicted twice of moderately severe or violent crimes (it is enough to simply break into a private home), the third time automatically means: life imprisonment. It does not matter if the third offense was trivial. There is actually a case in California where someone was sentenced to life imprisonment because they stole a pizza the third time. That means at least 25 years!
Two million prisoners are sitting in American prisons. That's 1% of the population! I believe that is almost a world record. By the way, the correctional facilities are mostly located in remote areas. On our excursions, we have passed by a few of them. You can tell on the highway because suddenly there are signs that say you shouldn't pick up hitchhikers anywhere in the area.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}