Here is the story of my jury duty experience from May 19, 1998. If you found it interesting, please email me and tell me what you think.

Jury Selection

Attorneys from both sides asked many questions from potential jurors.

There were several rounds which consisted of the prosecuting attorney asking questions of the jurors, then the defense attorney. After the questioning, the attorneys would give a list of names to the judge who were to be excused or accepted.

The defense attorney's favorite questions were "If a defendant did not take the stand in his own behalf, would you consider that evidence of guilt?" Many jurors said yes, and many of them were excused during peremptory challanges. "Have you ever seen a stranger and thought it was someone you knew? I pretty much figured that the defendant would not take the stand, and that the defense would argue mistaken identity.

The first round, only about 4 jurors were chosen. I moved into the jury box for the second round. Around 8 of us were chosen, including me. I went into the deliberation room and they had another round to choose one more juror, the alternate.

Key players:

Mark Baker* - White male around 40.

Marie Baker* - White female around 40. Mark's wife. They live together on 30th street.

Franklin - White male around 70. Marie's uncle. Has difficulty talking. Not entirely coherent.

Johnathan Tyson - Black male. 18 years old. The defendant. Accused of breaking into the Baker's house with an accomplice, stabbing Marie Baker with a knife, and demanding and stealing Mark's wallet.

* Name changed

Opening statements - Prosecution

Ms. Law (yes, that really was her name, or something like it) described the case as fairly straightforward. On February 22, 1998, Franklin was asleep in the living room. He was awakened to dogs barking and got out of bed. The front door was then kicked in, and the force knocked Franklin to the ground, next to Mark and Marie's bedroom door. Franklin recognized one of the robbers as Jonathan Tyson. Jonathan Tyson called for Mark by name. And demanded "give me Mark's wallet." Franklin, still on the ground, began banging on Mark and Marie's bedroom door, crying "Mark, Help!"

At this point, Mark and Marie were woke up. Marie was on the side of the bed closest to the bedroom door, and she got to the door first. She opened it and saw Franklin on the floor, and Jonathan, with a knife, and another robber in the living room. Jonathan demanded Mark's wallet.

Meanwhile, Mark ran into the bathroom and locked both doors. He then dialed 911 from the phone in the bathroom. He later ran out of the second bedroom. He also recognized the first robber as Jonathan.

During the robbery, Jonathan took the wallet and stabbed Marie Baker twice, causing small cuts.

Opening statements - Defense

Ms. Stinton-Glen, the defense lawyer, described the case as being not as clear-cut as the prosecution described.

The previous fall, the Bakers invited Geri Teague and Jermisha Teague (Geri's daughter, 16 years old at the time) to live with them. Jonathan Tyson began dating Jermisha. Marie Baker and Geri Teague had known each other for over 30 years. Marie had know Jermisha her whole life. After about 2 months, the Teagues moved out of the Bakers' house, apparently over some disputes. Jermisha wanted to have Jonathan Tyson come live with them, but Marie wouldn't allow it. It appears that Marie had various rules and she and Jermisha clashed over rules and disciplinary issues. At this point in time, Marie says she's good friends with Geri, though not on good terms with Jermisha.

The prosecution spent a fair amount of time talking about mistaken identity during the jury selection, and basically said that you can think that a stranger you see is actually someone from your past. The defense tried to say that the Bakers think it was Jonathan because of their previous contact with Jonathan.

Trial Proceedings - Prosecution

For the tesimony portion of the trial, I've written the actual testimony in regular font, and my comments or explanations in italics.

Franklin (Marie Baker's uncle) - First Witness

Franklin took a long time to get into the witness chair. He had an artificial leg. It was very difficult to understand him because of his speech. Often he didn't answer the questions correctly (i.e., answered the wrong question.) It was obvious that he had some kind of mental impairment. My impression was that he was honest, but not very smart. During the testimony, several things were unclear. At first, I thought the dogs barking woke him up, but later I thought he was already awake because he had to go to the bathroom. He said that the dogs woke him up, but also that he spent about 5 minutes in the bathroom.

When he woke up, the house was dark. He made his way to the bathroom in the dark, turned on the bathroom light. After about five minutes, he turned the light off and left the bathroom.

The door was kicked in, knocking him down. He landed next to Thomas and Marie's door and began banging on it, crying "Mark, Help!" He recognized one of the two intruders as Jonathan, and, later for the detective, picked Jonathan Tyson out of a police photo array.

The prosecution had a diagram of the house, and when asked where the bathroom was, drew an X on the wrong side of the house, even though the bathroom was labeled "Bathroom" on the diagram. He correctly labeled his sleeping area in the living room. Again, my impression was of someone who knew what happened that night, gave honest testimony, but was not too bright, as shown by his confused answers and his mislabeling of the bathroom.

Marie Baker*

Apparently Marie's statement also referenced a phone call she received from Geri threatening to burn her house down. I think the call was received a few hours after the robbery (an attempt to keep the Bakers quiet?). Marie didn't tell the police about this threat initially. Also, no restraining order was sought. I believe the defense tried to show that Marie was making the threat up.

At this point, I believe the defense called a sidebar. The defense had been objecting often so far, especially about the photo array. I think the sidebar related to the call which Marie received. The judge immediately called a recess.

At this point, I wrote down note about what had happened, and when the court recommenced, I took my notepad into court and began taking notes. I was the only one taking notes. It baffles me how the other jurors could have been so sure about what they heard when none of them was taking notes. The recess lasted a few minutes, and we were led back into the courtroom.

Marie said "I saw Jonathan Tyson steal the wallet," Yet in her police statement, she said that she gave the wallet to Jonathan. She said that the police statement was wrong, and may not have quoted her correctly. (Not!)

Her statement also said that the wallet was normally on the dresser, yet I believe that in court she said it was in Mark's pants pocket.

Her statement said that she never saw the knife. (She may have meant she never saw it before the knife attack). I think the defense was trying to find contradictions in Marie's testimony about the knife and wallet, though I felt those were minor issues.

Geri called her about 2 hours after the robbery. Another source (her statement) apparently said that she didn't know whether the call was placed in the morning or afternoon. Odd…

In her statement, Marie said that only Franklin saw the knife.

In Marie's defense, I should say the defense attorney appeared to take people's statements out of context, and the prosecution later exposed this tactic in some instances.

Marie saw Jonathan running at her with his knife, about to stab her in the chest. The other robber was yelling "Cut her, Jonathan!" She covered her chest with her hands, and the robber stabbed her, once on the arm and once on one of her fingers. We were shown a photo of her in her underwear with bandages on her arm and finger, along with a patch on her eye which we were told was cause by a tree limb and was unrelated to this case. We also saw pictures of the door frame which was broken from being kicked in, and a picture of the front of the Baker house, complete with fence with two No Tresspassing signs and two Beware of Dog signs.

The dogs are vicious. The Bakers had problems with the dogs biting the neighbors, which is why they put up the Beware of Dog and No Tresspassing signs.

Thomas Baker*

Direct by Prosecution

Got up at around 4:00-4:15am after 2-3 hours of sleep. Awakened by noise of Franklin banging at bedroom door and yelling. Franklin was yelling "Jonathan's here."

Saw Jonathan in the bedroom door. His wife got to the door first. 8-10 inch switch blade. (I thought switch blades were all about 4 inches long).

At this point, Mark took about 1 minute to answer the next question. People later speculated about whether he was trying to remember or trying to make up a story.

Ran into the bathroom and dialed 911.

He lost about $80, along with a credit card, and other things. Statement said he also lost a military ID.

Detective showed him photos and he identified Jonathan in the lineup. He was 100% sure. (I don't know if this means 100% sure that Jonathan was in his house, or 100% sure that the person he chose on the lineup was Jonathan).

Mark was known to carry a lot of money in his pocket, due to his ice cream business. Jonathan knew this.

Crossexam by defense:

The dogs are vicious.

Knew Jonathan since last fall.

According to the police statement, Mark had seen Jonathan only a few times.

Police statement asked "How did Jonathan know about the money in your wallet? Geri knew about it."

Geri and her daughter Jermisha left for no particular reason. He was not involved in the decision.

When he went into the living room that night, his first reaction was that his wife had been shot. (This was not in his statement). His statement said that he first saw the knife later.

Mark said he saw the knife at the same time as the threat.

Statement: Jonathan had seen him counting the money in his wallet, and knew he usually carried a lot of cash.

Redirect by prosecution:

Ms. Law had Mark read his complete statement about the money in his wallet. The statement barely mentions Geri (i.e., the defense tried to make it look like Mark in his statement was accusing Geri of telling Jonathan about the money (which would be absurd), when in reality that is not what Mark really meant.

His wife was bleeding profusely.

Recross by defense (after a recess?):

No questions.

Detective Shelton

Direct by prosecution:

(Ms. Stinten-Glen was real upset about the photo array and objected to the judge).

No questions that I recall

Crossexam by defense:

(Ms. Stinten-Glen kept pointing out that Jonathan's name was not on the photo array and seemed to think that that proved something, and kept objecting. I have no idea what).

(Some paper was discussed, which contained crossed out areas. Describes defendant as 6 feet tall. We got to see the paper, which listed a different last name, e.g, Jonathan Jones or something. How did that get botched up? Statement from original detective was from Feb. 22. Detective Shelton was the second detective on the case, and I think the Bakers may have known him personally and called for him. I'm not sure. In any case, he took over the investigation).

Statement: Uncle was wakened by dogs and went to the door. Uncle said that wallet was given to robber. Uncle said that family had had problems with Jonathan before the night of Feb 22.

Jonathan is less than 6 feet tall. (The defense lawyer said he is 5'7" to 5'8").

Probably cause affidavit of Det. Shelton: Marie Baker said "Two black males entered bedroom."

Statement (?) Jonathan was not arrested until Feb 24, although the Bakers told the police where Jonathan was.

Redirect by prosecution:

People's guesses of heights are often wrong. Short people often overguess tall people, and vice versa. The rest of the statement is good.

Recross by defense:

If the addresses are blackened, it is generally to serve as protection of the accused.

(?): But if the address of the accused is already known by everyone (i.e., the Bakers), blackening the addresses on the police paper would be pointless. (Was the defense trying to show that the accused's address was not known because the accused was not Jonathan???)

(Ms. Stinten-Glen tried to keep Ms. Law from talking about the paper, State Exhibit A, and objected. The judge called a recess. After the recess, we saw the document, which was the same as the previous paper except with the addresses present. We saw this document, but Jonathan had the wrong last name.)

The state rested.

Trial Proceedings - Defense

Johnathan Tyson

Direct by defense:

"Do you have any adult convictions?" "Just one - carrying a handgun without a license." (I think that was a misdemeanor).

At 6:00pm he went to the hospital with some others. At 10:30 he was dropped off at 29th and Delaware, where he got another car and drove around. At 12:30am he picked up Jermisha and his brother Jason. Drove to the west side to buy pot. Smoked pot until 2:00am. The brother left. Spent the night with Jermisha at Debby's place.

There was an argument at the Bakers about a telephone call. (Apparently Jonathan called another girl from there, who called back and Marie answered. Marie called the girl a "nigger bitch.")

Mark referred him for a job with RCA Dome security.

Crossexam by defense and redirect by prosecution (I forget where one ends and the other begins):

"How do you always know what time it is when you did these things?" "I always look at my watch and always know what time it is." "Can you tell us everything you did, say, on Feb 20?" "Yes" (He then gave a detailed description of what he did, incuding getting a haircut and smoking pot. I think he made some of this up because nobody remembers what happened so far back on a nondescript day).

I got up at 10:30am on Feb 22. We were too late for church so we went to evening church instead.

First contact with the Bakers was around November 16.

The job reference was in December.

Geri moved out shortly before Christmas (Dec 20?)

Marie Bakers "layed hands on him - hit him."

Lived from Nov-Dec by the Bakers. Jermisha let him in the side door sometimes so he could sneak in."

At Debby's everyone slept upstairs. They got to bed at around 2:00-2:30am. There were several people in the room, including a 6 month old baby, Jonathan, Jermisha, and one other person.

Jermisha Smith*

Direct by defense:

She's 17 years old. (I think her mother is white).

She and Jonathan went to Debby's. After the hospital they went to Lisa's, then to Debbies. Then to Jonathan's mother. She and Jonathan smoked some pot, then went to Debby's. Went to sleep around 2:00-2:30. They got up at 12:00-12:30. Jonathan was there when she woke up and they woke up together.

Marie called Jonathan's friend "a name" (i.e., nigger bitch).

Crossexam by defense:

She was 16 at the time of the robbery. Arrived at Debby's at 6:00-6:30pm. Got to Lisa's at 8:00-8:30. Done at hospital at 11:30-12:00. Went to pick up Jonathan at 12:00-12:15am, but he wasn't there. Got to Debby's house at 12:30-1:00. Then went with Jonathan and Jason to Jonathan's mother's place on the east side. Got back to Debby's at 2:00-2:30. Slept with Debbie, a bady, Shannon, and Danielle. Slept well. Remembers nothing of the time period between 2:30am and 12:30 pm.

Marie called the police on her because of curfew. Arrested on the same evening in November as the big argument. (I think the argument is Jermisha wanting permission for Jonathan to move in. Marie refused to give it). Geri and Jermisha stayed about 3-4 weeks after the argument.

Did not recall that Marie ever hit Jonathan.

Telephone call before the arrest. (Defense tried to show that Marie called the police out of revenge?)

State recall of Marie Baker

Geri and Jermisha left in early November. No problems with Jonathan after their departure. Jonathan never lived with them, though he was there occasionally. Jermisha sometimes helped him sneak in through the side door.

She never had the telephone conversation and never called anyone a "nigger bitch."

Recess.

Closing Remarks - Prosecution

We must prove that

1) Burglary (class C felony): The defendant knowingly broke and entered a structure with intent to commit a felony. Class B felony if the structure was a dwelling.

2) Robbery (class C felony): The defendant knowingly took stuff from a person or persons through force or threat of force. Class B felony if deadly weapon is used.

According to her own testimony, Jermisha had no idea what Jonathan might have been doing between 2:30am and 12:30pm.

(My comment: What did the move out date have to do with anything?)

Where were the other witnesses of the others in the room?

If the Bakers are trying to frame Jonathan out of revenge, why the long time period until the robbery?

Closing Remarks - Defense

Marie said she didn't call police on Jermisha.

Marie said that Geri threatened to burn her house down.

Marie should have known about the 6 feet tall issue.

Why were the dogs barking but didn't bite anyone? The dogs barked because strangers were breaking in.

Mark claims to only see Jonathan once (or twice) but recommended him for a job?

Contradiction: Bakers said they hadn't seen the Tiegs. Statement said they had (I don't understand this one).

(Had Mark said the robbers left by foot? He saw them running (on foot) to their car)

(Can juvinile crimes be mentioned? I doubt it, and bet that Jonathan has a long juvinile record).

Ms. Stinton-Glen seems to be painting a picture of a conspiracy. She said the Bakers ma be unconsciously associating Jonathan with the robber. (Not!) Or maybe the Cooks weren't sure.

More Closing Remarks - Prosecution

Nothing that I recall.

Deliberations

After the trial, the jurors were sent into the jury room to deliberate. It was around 7:30-8:00 PM.

I was pretty sure Jonathan was guilty, though some of the theories from the defense had put doubts in my mind, so I wasn't sure.

The first thing that we as jurors did was decide on a foreman. None of the others wanted to be foreman. Severel people asked me if I wanted to be foreman, and I agreed and was unanimously elected. I was glad, because I thought this would be a good opportunity to make a difference.

After just a few minutes, the bailiff came in and asked what we wanted to eat. We ended up going down to Subway, which was across the street. On the way to Subway, we passed Marie Baker. Nobody spoke to her, and we were pretty quiet, because we figured that we weren't allowed to discuss the case when outside of the jury room.

As we ordered our food, Marie Baker showed up with Franklin. Franklin sat down while Marie went through the line behind us, not saying anything.

After the meal, we went back into the jury room. Now was the time to really start to talk about the case. Someone suggested voting immediately. After all, she reasoned, maybe we're already unanimous and could end this thing right now. I personally hadn't decided yet, and asked for a show of hands of who was undecided and wished to discuss the case before taking a vote. All (or nearly all) agreed.

Some of the questions we had were:

Why wasn't Jonathan charged with assault if he stabbed Marie Baker?

Why wasn't Jonathan arrested immediately? I got the impression that he was not charged until two days later, after Deputy Shilton got involved. Did the Bakers implicate Tyson immediately (on the 22nd) or two days later (on the 24th)?

Why did the robbers allow Marie Baker to run out of the house and back in? Why would she even do this? What did she run out in the first place? If she was scared, why did she run back in?

Why did Mark Baker run into the bathroom and lock both doors instead of going to the living room to protect his family? After all, he was a security guard...

Were the lights off during the entire robbery? Franklin said he turned the bathroom light off. Most of the jurors thought the lights stayed off, though I think they were probably on again. Just because they weren't mentioned any more in testimony doesn't mean they weren't on, and it seems strange that nobody would turn the lights on during the entire time the robbery occurred.

What were those dogs doing? Both Bakers said they were vicious, but we didn't hear anything about it.

Why were there no medical records for Marie Cook? Some jurors questioned her injuries, and mentioned that they didn't see any scars on her when they saw her in Subway. (I didn't notice.)

Could it be that the Bakers actually heard Franklin calling their names outside their bedroom door, not the robber?

Why was there no testimony about fingerprints? I speculated that police probably only bother with fingerprints in serious cases (i.e., murders).

After 30-45 minutes of discussion, I called a vote. There were:

Guilty: 2

Not Guilty: 6

Undecided: 4 (including myself. I was undecided, though leaning toward guilty)

The alternate juror, number 13, was not allowed to discuss the case or vote. She spent the entire evening crocheting doll clothes. Claimed she could sell it for $25. Not bad...

One of the biggest problems that we as jurors had with this case was the fact that there was no physical evidence linking Jonathan to the crime. We basically had the Bakers' testimony versus Jonathan's (and Jermisha's) testimony. I thought the Bakers were more credible than Jonathan, though the other jurors weren't sure. Some jurors had the thought of revenge lingering in their minds. I didn't really see what exactly they would want revenge for, or why they would wait several months to get it. Were they robbed by a stranger, but then decided to name Jonathan as the robber? These theories sounded very improbable to me, and I fought against them during most of the deliberations, but in the end I couldn't rule them out with 100% certainty.

After maybe another hour, we voted again. The votes were:

Guilty: 0

Not guilty: 9

Undecided: 3 (Here I was again, still undecided but leaning toward guilty).

I could see that the guilty side, which I thought of as my side even though I still voted unecided, was losing ground. People kept bringing up issues of the Baker's testimony, showing Marie's contradictions of her police statement and her unusual actions of running out of the house. The jury also considered Mark's running into the bathroom and locking the doors odd behavior for a husband and a police officer. People kept raising doubts: Did we know that there was even a robbery at all?

Another vote was taken, this time at around 10:30pm.

Guilty: 2 (I finally took a stand!)

Not Guilty: 10

Undecided: 0

Unfortunately, everyone was moving one way and I was moving the other. It was just me and Ms. Grau (name changed). These theories just seemed so implausible to us. I asked if they could all agree on if there was a robbery. Not all of them did.

In the end, a small amount of doubt remained in my mind, so I was forced to change my position to Not Guilty.

My frustrations with this trial

No access to court transcripts, police statements, or evidence during deliberation. It would have helped to determine if witnesses contradicted each other or their own police statements.

Couldn't find out about juvenile convictions…

Many things were said at the beginning of the trial whose significance was not apparent until later. Also the beginning of the trial is more confusing because you're keeping track of all these new people and names, and trying to reconcile many variations of who said what to whom.

Advice to Jurors

If you ever get called for jury duty, you should serve, especially if you've never served on a jury before. I missed some activities that Monday and didn't get home until after midnight, but it really was fascinating to participate in this slice of Real Life.

Go through each issue point by point. We had more of a free for all, which was okay, except that one point would be partially discussed and then interrupted as someone else blurted out something about a totally different point. We should have fully discussed each point instead of letting ourselves get off on tangents. I think that the more tangents that you take, and the later it gets, the further you get from the reality of what happened.

Don't spend too much time on what's undisputed. I get the feeling that the more jurors talk and speculate, the more they drift from what actually happened (e.g., lights, was there really a robbery?)

You're allowed to be judgmental! It's your job! You have to look for things which make one person more credible than the other in a case of my word versus yours.

Advice to the Prosecution

Charge suspect with every possible crime. In this case, they failed to charge Tyson with assault.

Get lots of support, even if it seems unnecessary, to remove every possible doubt. Some jurors were even doubting that there was a robbery, even though in the trial it was undisputed. Try to give as many types of support for everything. Each juror seems to have his or her personal hang up about something, and covering your bases multiple times would go a long way toward removing the doubt in each juror's mind.

Get inconsistencies out of your witnesses. It's natural for people to have differing accounts, but it can make them look dishonest.

Advice to the Defense

Cause doubt wherever you can! It just takes a little to cause "reasonable doubt" in some of the jurors.

Email me!

This case still haunts me. Somehow the doubts from that day seem more absurd now, though I'm still not sure if I'm convinced with absolute certainty that Jonathan is guilty, and if you have reasonable doubt, you must acquit.

I sure wish I would have had more of a clear-cut case. I could have acted, known I was right, and gone home. Instead, I've been thinking about it a lot and wondering if I acted correctly. I guess posting this on the web is my way of venting and dealing with it all. What do you think I should have done?

Carl, you idiot, how could you have let him off!?
Carl, you did the right thing. If you're not sure, you have to let him go.