Showing posts with label criminal trial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminal trial. Show all posts

Thursday, October 2, 2014

War over discovery and exculpatory evidence

 Why is it that prosecutors don't want to turn over evidence? Are they scared that if they do, they are going to lose? When I was a prosecutor, I figured that if I showed you how strong my case was, you would be more likely to take my plea offer. And, if there were weaknesses in my case, I needed to understand and acknowledge them. I had several cases I sent back to the detectives for further investigation.

In the end, the mandate of the prosecutor is to DO JUSTICE.

When I worked for the DA of New York, the mandate was taken seriously. That was a dozen years ago, and I don't know how things are today.

In Tennessee - the mandate seems to be to win at all costs. Cases are brought without sufficient evidence. I get the feeling the standard the prosecutors use for measuring a case has nothing to do with proof beyond a reasonable doubt but whether or not they have enough for the much lower probable cause to get through preliminary hearings and grand juries.

I think the problem is that most criminal cases plea out. So, the prosecutors know that if they can get it past preliminary hearings and grand jury, then the defendant is likely, probably 97 or 98 percent of the time, to plea. Those are pretty good odds for the prosecutor.

Frankly, I blame my fellow defense attorneys and myself. We need to do a better job demanding evidence and defending our cases. We need to attack the case more and be willing to take cases to trial. The more we do that, the more likely we are to accomplish a couple of things.

  1. Get better results for our clients;
  2. Get weak cases dismissed;
  3. Win jury trials;
  4. Get better plea offers for our clients;
  5. Force the prosecutors to take a close look at their cases from the start (this will happen if we take away the almost guaranteed plea deal from them and make them work for their case).
A wise friend once said that the quality of the prosecution in your town or county is a direct reflection of the quality of the defense bar. (Brent Turvey, criminologist). I believe that to be a true statement.

The more we hold their feet to the fire, the more they will demand from their police officers in the field. There will be fewer weak cases - frivolous you might call them, fewer unjust pleas, the case loads will lighten up, and the real cases will go forward. We will have a more proficient defense bar that is willing to take more cases to trial.

Believe me, in many instances, you will get a better result from 12 of your neighbors in a jury trial than you will ever get from the State. And, if the prosecutor knows you are willing to go that far, he will become much more realistic, much quicker.

Results speak for themselves. Over the last year, I took four criminal cases to trial with not guilty verdicts on all of the charged crimes. Subsequently, I have answered ready on three felony cases, one a first degree murder, one a rape and one a coercion case, all of which have been dismissed by the State prior to trial.

If we do this, if we fight for discovery and exculpatory evidence. If we battle the case all the way through, the quality of our criminal justice system will improve for everyone. Trials get the citizens involved, too. The community will feel it has a stake in the system. This is a good result and empowering for all of us. Believe it or not, it is even a good policy for the prosecutors.

Never say die. Put on your best defense.

Bob V
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com


Monday, September 22, 2014

FBI crime lab testing evidence in Ja'Naya Thompson's killing

FBI crime lab testing evidence in Ja'Naya Thompson's killing


rfitzgerald@sunherald.com Twitter: robincrimenewsSeptember 20, 2014 

GULFPORT -- One of the largest, most comprehensive crime labs in the world is analyzing evidence collected in the disappearance and killing of 5-year-old Ja'Naya Thompson.
It's the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Va., whose teams have recovered evidence in some of the most high-profile international disasters and performed forensic tests to identify child pornographers, kidnappers and terrorists.
Local police typically use the Mississippi Crime Laboratory or a private crime lab for forensic tests to solve a crime.
So how did the Gulfport Police Department obtain the full resources of the FBI?
Panic gripped neighbors, first responders and strangers July 16 when a search of The Palms apartment complex turned up no sign of Ja'Naya. She had been playing outside the sliding-glass doors of her family's apartment before she disappeared that night.
"All the conventional methods we were using were not finding her," Police Chief Leonard Papania said.
Asking for help
"We were getting concerned if we were moving forward properly. As we were garnering resources to search for her, I reached out to the FBI for their expertise. We were thinking it was going to go long-term."
Agents from the FBI's Gulfport office were on scene the next morning when a search-and-rescue dog, using the scent from a piece of Ja'Naya's clothing, raised suspicions outside a vacant mobile home on Whitney Drive, about 50 yards north of the apartments. A search team alerted some Gulfport firefighters. They found Ja'Naya hanging from two socks tied to a metal bar on a small window above the bathtub. It appeared she had been sexually assaulted.
The girl, who loved to dress up and wear jewelry, died of asphyxiation by strangulation. She was looking forward to starting kindergarten at the school across from her apartment on Klein Road.
Papania said the FBI offered to bring in its evidence-response team unit from the Jackson office, which oversees FBI activity in Mississippi. He accepted the offer.
More than 100 pieces of evidence were collected, according to police testimony in the recent preliminary hearing of Alberto Garcia.
Garcia's arrest
Police arrested Garcia, 29, the day after Ja'Naya's body was found. Police said they were questioning him about her disappearance when he voluntarily admitted he had broken into the mobile home days earlier, saying his fingerprints would be found there. Garcia also lived at The Palms.
Police first arrested Garcia on a burglary charge, but identified him as one of two suspects in the killing. A judge set his bond at $500,000.
A few days later, Garcia asked to speak to a detective, and reportedly gave information only police and the perpetrators would have known. He also told them a neighbor, Julian Gray, came to his apartment that night and told him he'd had an incident with a girl and needed his help, recent testimony revealed.
Police said Garcia confessed to sexually assaulting Ja'Naya and helping hang her.
Police arrested him on a capital murder charge July 23. He is being held with no bond.
Testimony at Garcia's preliminary hearing revealed his DNA and statements to police linked him to her sexual assault and hanging. The testimony offered no explanation as to who took Ja'Naya to the trailer.
Gray a person of interest
Meanwhile, the 31-year-old Gray, also a resident of The Palms, is held on unrelated charges and remains a person of interest.
Two months later, Gray has not been charged in Ja'Naya's death.
Papania said the FBI Laboratory is continuing to process evidence.
Police arrested Gray the night Ja'Naya was found dead. He is held on bonds of $500,000 on charges of rape and sexual battery. Police have said they arrested him on the complaint of a female acquaintance who claims he sexually assaulted her at his apartment.
The lack of a second arrest has drawn criticism from some in a widespread community that united in an outpouring of concern for the child and her family.
However, grand juries often decline to hand down indictments in cases in which tests on crucial evidence have not been completed.
Status of evidence
So where does the processing of evidence stand?
"As a matter of practice, the FBI Laboratory does not publicize information regarding forensic examinations conducted in support of criminal investigations that belong to our law enforcement partners," said FBI Special Agent Ann Todd of the Office of Public Affairs in Quantico.
Todd said the FBI lab "uses cutting-edge science and state-of-the-art technology" and has more than 500 scientific experts and special agents. "The men and women of the FBI Laboratory are dedicated to using the rigors of science … to assist law enforcement and national security investigations worldwide."
Papania said he has no idea how long it will take.
"We all want this to be done and over with," he said. "The quality of the process is what we need to focus on. Our job in law enforcement is to bring it to a conclusion, and when we conclude our investigation, the District Attorney's Office will take over.
"By no means has this investigation concluded."

Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2014/09/20/5811723/fbi-crime-lab-testing-evidence.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Plea Offers - Too Good to Turn Down?

My client, we'll call her Sue for our purposes of discussion, was charged in a sale and delivery indictment in a school zone in a neighboring county. She was facing a minimum of 8 years at 100% because of the school zone. She had at least one prior possession charge and the current charge violated her probation, so she was in jail serving out her last sentence. It didn't matter, because she couldn't make bond, anyway. She had two children living with her mother.

The State's case consisted of two, recorded buys. What that means is they send in a undercover person - in this case, a well known drug addict and small time dealer who was familiar with my client and her roommate. Call him Bill.

Bill gets money from the detectives. They give him a cell phone to use. They record the calls he makes. He calls the house where my client lives and makes a deal with someone else to come there and buy a couple of pills. This is recorded. The police pretend to search him to see if he has any pills on him before he goes to the buy location. Supposedly, he does not. But, they let him take a friend in the car with him and they do not search the friend. The do a cursory search of the car.

He goes to the residence. He is wearing a wire (in this case, it is a digital tape recorder). He goes in and supposedly engages in a drug transaction. The voices that are on the recording are his and some third party in the house, not Sue's.

When he reports to the police, he names Sue as one of the people who sold him drugs. He does this again.

Based on that, she is indicted. The State is going to try put her in jail for 8 years on the word of a druggy who benefits from helping the police: he gets charges dropped and he makes some money for himself. The didn't even control the situation. They let an unsearched person go with him in the car.

Several months later, after she has sat in jail, we appear in court. The prosecutor offers to drop the school zone and let her plead to a six year sentence for which she would get probation after serving 30 percent. My client says no.

I'm kind of happy, because I'm ready to try the case. I think the evidence is minimal and that they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client did anything or participated in anything.

We set the matter for trial. Two months later, we're ready for trial, and the State can't go forward. They come up with some excuse and the judge, over my objection, gives them a continuance. Now, my client's sat for five months. In one more month, the misdemeanor she is charged with is flattened and she could get out, but she can't make bond on the felony.

Never the less, she does not want to plea. I tell the DA we're going to trial. We're going to put them to their proof.

Two months later, after seven months in jail, the DA says to me: "we're having a fire sale, we'll plea Sue's case down to a misdemeanor, one year, time served, probation for a couple of months." Quite a way from 8 years, I think, but I think I can get her an acquittal if we go to trial. Still, it's a good offer.

Sue says no. Silently, I applaud her. She says there is no way she'll plea out to something she didn't do. She knows the proof, we've discussed it, she knows they have very little evidence. And, she knows the guy, and knows him to be a liar and a thief, as well as a drug addict and part time dealer. She says she's bought pills from him in the past.

The DA is visibly upset when I refuse on behalf of my client.

"That's a great offer," he says.

"I know, but she's innocent."

"Alright."

"Let's go to trial."

The next trial date is three months out. I go and see her in jail to tell her about it.

She's really mad and justifiably so. She'll have sat for almost a year by the time her case goes to trial for a crime the state can't prove.

She decides to take the misdemeanor plea, we get it with no probation. Why?

The DA knows he can't prove his case. Why doesn't he dismiss the case? I don't know. There is certainly the influence of local law enforcement. They think every arrest is a good one and people ought to be going to jail. Political pressure is put on the DA to get a conviction on every case.

Since their officers can't admit a mistake, neither can they. So, its either lose a case or dispose of it for something, anything, and get a conviction. Conviction it is.

It was impossible for Sue to say no. The offer was too good. She could get out of jail that day. She could go home to her kids after about 9 or 10 months. Or, she could wait another couple of months for a trial (there is essentially no speedy trial clock in TN. It is not statutory, so it is whatever a judge says it is as long as it's not unreasonable.) 

The offer was too good for Sue to turn down. I can't tell you how much I see this. When people are in jail, when they want to go home, the nobility of insisting on a trial fades away to more practical concerns. The State knows this, and they will continue to run this game until we can figure out  a way to get our client's out of jail on a reasonable bond - which is also a problem.

I would rather take a case to trial. I trust a jury. I believe in 12 citizens. They may start out in the wrong place - most people think that if you got arrested there must be something going on. But, even with that consideration to overcome in voir dire, I like juries. My clients are scared. And when they see a carrot in front of them, are more likely to take it.

I don't know what the happy compromise is. So, for me, for now, I'll just keep trying case and beat the State every chance I get. It is the best thing for me to do for my clients.

Bob Vogel
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
www.robertvogellaw.com

Saturday, March 8, 2014

What's New at TLC: 4-0 for NOT GUILTY verdicts since graduating from ...

What's New at TLC: 4-0 for NOT GUILTY verdicts since graduating from ...: TLC Grad Bob Vogel (July '13) writes the following.  Congratulations to you Bob, and to your client.  He was very fortunate to have you...

Please click on the link above to review the article on the TLC website.

Bob Vogel: rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com

Monday, February 17, 2014

Stop Government Oppression

by Robert L. Vogel

In my last trial, there were several instances in which the government tried to misuse its power. I defend people accused of crimes because the government does this. They will come after you with all their power to crush you. There is a mandate, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that says that a prosecutor is to "Do Justice." They may strike with a heavy blow, but not an unfair one.

Yet, time and again, from the arrest and investigation, through the trial, there is an abuse of power. We NEED trial attorneys willing to step up and fight for individuals against the power of the State. We need trial attorneys who will defend the little guy, the guy who can't plunk down a years pay, attorneys who will work for the $40 per hour the State of Tennessee pays (they haven't raised the rate in over two decades, I believe), or the $125 per hour the Federal court's pay and still be willing to believe in their case and fight for them.

We need attorneys out there who are willing to take the government to the mat and say "PROVE IT", prove your case or let my client go. We need attorneys who are not going to compromise their clients because it is easier and expeditious to do so.

We see government abuses everyday. We see police who don't respect the 4th amendment. We see trial judges who won't suppress illegally obtained evidence. We see prosecutors and judges worrying about the electorate and the vote they will get next time instead of doing the right thing on a case by case basis. We see prosecutors rewarded by the number of cases prosecuted and sentenced.

Nobody is out there looking for justice. Who will do it. It must be the trial lawyers, the solo practitioner, the small firm, the guy who starts out taking appointments because he believes in helping people. We have to stand up to the machine that would grind us and our clients into the dirt they use to build more of their for profit prisons.

I'll leave you with a video of one of my personal heroes and one of the most respected trial attorneys in America.
Gerry Spence on Government Oppression

Robert Vogel may be contacted at his law firm in Knoxville, TN by calling 865-357-1949 or by emailing rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com

www.robertvogellaw.com



Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Let the Jury Choose Itself

Heading into a trial thinking that you are going to pick just the right jury who will all vote your way is akin to thinking that you can just pick all the right lottery numbers because of the characteristics of the numbers themselves - four is more likely to be a winning number than three because four is more angular and three has too many curves - five is a confusing combination of both.

You cannot pick a jury. I know that is a bold statement and will be met with howls of resistance by those who think you can actually, scientifically, determine who is just the right juror. I'm sorry, but my experience teaches me that this cannot be done.

You cannot predict how an individual will act in a group setting, under pressure with the data that is available to you at the time you have to pick your jury. Further, you cannot predict how that group of individuals will act once it is time for them to deliberate. The interaction of 12 individuals, previously unknown to each other, with separate and distinct personalities and backgrounds cannot be reduced to some quantifiable scientific equation. There are just too many variables.

You can't know who is really going to emerge as a strong voice. Will it be the big, middle-aged construction worker or the sixty year old retired school teacher? Will the well educated college professor carry the day or will it be the thirty year old computer programmer? Do you want engineers or not on your jury? What about people who have had a recent death in the family? People who have known grief and loss? People who've been injured? People who are recovering addicts? People who have unresolved issues with their parents or siblings?

As you start to ask the questions, the absurdity of trying to figure out all the answers becomes clear.

So, what can you do?

You can pose a problem similar to the problems that the jury will have to wrestle with in your case and then watch and let them work through it. This requires some forethought. You have to understand the problems in your case. You have to be able to reduce them to a common concern, fear or issue that the members of the jury are likely to have experienced. Then, you have to get them to open up and work with you.

The last part is potentially the hardest.

Put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if you were called to jury duty and had never spent any time in a court room setting? How would you feel once you check in, get a badge, and are shuffled off into a big room with a bunch of strangers? Wouldn't you really rather be at work, or at home, or anywhere else? Aren't you hoping they don't choose you?

Some clerk is telling you where to go and what to do. There are bailiff's around with guns. You are in an unfamiliar setting waiting. You wait for an hour or more and nothing happens.

Someone comes and they take you and a bunch of others to a courtroom. They call you a panel or a venire. They sit you and some others in the jury box. The rest of the group is put in the pews nearby. The Judge is there, in black robes, looking very serious and imposing. She doesn't look happy to be there and she doesn't look happy that you are there. Is there something wrong? Is this a bad case? Did you do something bad?

She starts talking to you and  some of what she says makes sense. Some of what she says is in a foreign language only understood by lawyers. But, you learn a little about what's expected of you, who else is in the courtroom and what may happen. And she asks you a bunch of questions. Then, she turns you over to the lawyers.

A lawyer pops up and starts talking to you. You don't know what the case is about, but he's asking you questions about stuff that seems like it might have to do with the case. It's all out of context and jumbled up, so it doesn't make much sense to you. He wants you to agree with him. Everyone else is nodding. So, you do, too. Sure, I can be fair, you say.

He smiles at you, you did something right. He asks someone nearby about some personal stuff. They answer. The lawyer frowns. He asks more questions, penetrating questions. You feel uncomfortable and squirm in your chair as the juror on the other end gets a little red in the face. What did he do wrong? Why is the lawyer unhappy with him? Why is he cross examining him?

Imagine how you would feel in that situation. When you are under pressure in a room full of strangers, its hard to feel comfortable and let your defenses down.

How things can be different

The lawyer stands up and starts to talk with you, not at you. He asks some easy questions and then he waits for an answer. He's not arguing with anyone. He's not trying to convince anyone of anything. He seems genuinely concerned about the trial and his client. He seems like he is not trying to figure out a reason to get rid of you, but he want's to include you, and everyone else there.

You begin to understand he has some concerns about the trial. He let's you know how they make him feel, and why. He communicates his true feelings, and you can tell that he's being genuine. You can always tell when someone is being genuine. He's not trying to fake anyone out.

When someone on the jury panel speaks, he listens carefully. He focuses on that person. He pays attention and makes sure he understands what they are saying. He opens the door for further comments and doesn't seem scared that jurors are talking with him and to each other. In fact, it seems to make him happy that jurors are voicing their opinions and thoughts.

As the jury warms to him and you all talk to him about things that might be argued at trial, things that you might have to discuss together in the jury room, you start listening to your fellow jurors and they start listening to you. You begin to warm toward each other and accept each other.

You begin to form a group. You begin to come together. As you learn about each other, there may even be things you don't like, but people are being honest and talking about themselves. And the lawyer is right in the middle of it, encouraging it, letting it happen, facilitating it.

And he never tries to argue or cross examine someone. If there is a level of discomfort, it comes from the subject, not the way he talks to someone. He becomes part of the group and people are listening to him and reacting to what he says and asks.

Maybe it comes out that someone in the group has trouble working through a particular issue. They just can't seem to be open about it. You can see he understands, and you understand when that juror is not chosen later. I makes sense because they would have trouble handling that issue during the trial.

He talks about what is going to happen in the trial, and what you and the other jurors are going to do. He asks how you feel about doing those things. You begin to lose your fear of the process and warm to your task.

You begin to feel empowered as you realize you matter. He says you are the most important part of the trial and by the way he's treating and interacting with you, you start to feel that you might be.

You gain confidence. You feel ready to go forward and be a juror.

And the lawyer wants you to be on the jury. You can feel it. It is a warm, accepting feeling. You are ready to work, and you feel comfortable with him. You can be fair. You can be open minded. You can look at this person's case exactly the way you would want someone to do it if you were on trial.

The jury is ready. They have chosen themselves as jurors. Or, in rare cases, they have shown they cannot be a juror on that particular case. They have given themselves permission to be brave, strong, open and fair. They have shown themselves to be willing to work together and to carefully work through the issues of the case. The lawyer has watched them work together and knows that they will do a good job.

They will carefully consider his case. They trust him and he trusts them. They will be fair.

What more can you ask of a jury?

Bob Vogel
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
865-357-1949
The Vogel Law Firm
www.robertvogellaw.com

Bob Vogel is an experienced trial attorney who represents defendants in criminal cases and individuals in injury, civil rights and consumer protection cases in both Federal and State Courts.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Racism and The Racial Bias of Juries in Criminal Trials


Dealing with Racial Bias in Juries

by Bob Vogel
Trial Attorney
Knoxville, TN
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
Graduate, Trial Lawyers College

Imagine being the only dog in a courtroom full of cats. Would you expect to get a fair shake?

_____________________________________________________________________

There, in the audience, as you walk in and take a seat at the defense table, are all the people who might sit on your jury. While they are different ages, different body types, different in hair style, different in gender, they all have one thing in common: they are all white. They sit scattered among the pews of the courtroom. Some in pairs, some in clumps of three or four. Some by themselves. They look serious. They don't smile. They won't look you in the eye. You know they are wondering what you did.

You look over at the next table. There sits the prosecutor. He's about six feet tall, slender and looks like he might work out. He's about fifty, maybe a little older. He wears an off the rack suit that fits him well. He has short, brown hair with a little grey mixed in and brown eyes. He is white. He looks a lot like some of the jurors. He nods toward them from time to time when they catch his eye. They are starting to look at him like he is in charge, like he has power in the courtroom.

Next to him is his assistant. She is tall and attractive. She has on a knee length, black dress, some modest jewelry to compliment her modest haircut and carefully applied makeup. She is pretty, but she has a stern look on her face today: her lips are pinched together and there are some age wrinkles showing around the corner of her mouth and around her narrowed eyes. When she looks at you, her face is hard, without expression. She knows what you did. At least, she thinks she does. But, when she turns toward the jury, she smiles a brilliant, engaging smile. All of the pictures and documents that they prosecutor is going to use to put you in jail sit in neat piles in front of her, ready to be passed to her boss at just the right time in the trial.

Your attorney walks in and sits down next to you. You've met with him a lot. He knows the whole story of your case. He knows you didn't do it - that you maintain your innocence. He's talked to the prosecutor about the case. He's shown you their evidence. The prosecutor wants you to plead to the charge with a minimum amount of jail time, but consecutive to what you're serving now. It will add about a year to your time.

You rejected that offer, because you know you didn't do it. You caught the look on your attorney's face when you did that. And it made you worry a little. Still, you have confidence in him. He wore a good suit, today. He has all his papers ready. He has an assistant with him, too, but she looks a little nervous. He has a nice face and he smiles at you as he sits down. But, still, you notice, he has the same kind of face that the jury and the prosecutor have - all white.

You look around the courtroom. You see several men and women in uniform. Some nod at you. Some look around the courtroom and won't catch your eye. There is a woman fussing with a computer and some flat, table top microphones: the court reporter. She seems preoccupied. Next to the judges bench, the clerk sits in front of a computer terminal. She is typing and looking at documents. They are trying to get some paperwork done before your trial starts. Trials take a long time and interfere with paperwork.

The Judge walks out. "All rise," one of the officers says. "Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, the Criminal Court for this county is now in session, all those with business before this Court approach and ye shall be heard. God save this honorable Court, the State of here we are and the United States of America." Then he leads everyone in the pledge of allegiance. You glance at your attorney, and you follow his lead, placing your hand on your heart and reciting the pledge. You're maybe a quarter of a beat behind because you haven't had to recite it since your were in grade school. You hope nobody else notices. They all seem to know it perfectly.

Your case is called. The Judge brings a group of people forward and sits them in the jury box. He asks them a bunch of questions and tells them a bunch of stuff. They stare back at him with blank faces. They nod when it seems appropriate. The smile at his jokes even though you don't understand them and you think they probably don't either. But, he is the judge.

Your attorney nods and makes some notes on a pad of paper. You see his assistant doing the same. Across the room, the prosecutor and his helper make notes and are looking at a list of names.

The judge turns the jury over to the attorneys. First, the prosecutor goes. He talks about gangs and gang violence, like you created it, and hopes the jury won't be offended by it. He talks about the fact that the crime happened in prison, but that the jury shouldn't think about that. They are all looking at you like they would look at their shoe after stepping in dog poop. You're starting to wonder why you didn't take the deal.

"Good morning," your attorney, Bob says, "I've been worried about something ever since I learned about this case. After listening to the prosecutor, whose job it is to put Mr. Smith away for as long as he possibly can, I'm just downright scared. I've got a knot in my stomach.

"Take a look at this," Bob says. He walks over to his computer and hits a couple of buttons. A cartoon pops up on the overhead.


"Anybody here want to trade places with Fido?" Bob says. You notice the prosecutor starting to stand up. But, then he decides against it.

"I wonder what it would be like to be in Fido's place? How do you think it would feel? Mr. A? How do you think it would feel to be in Fido's spot?"

Mr. A is not sure how to respond. He shrugs his shoulders, "not too good, I guess."

"I think you're right, Mr. A, not too good. Play along with me, why wouldn't it feel too good?"

"He ain't gonna get too good a deal from them cats," Mr. A says.

"No, he's not, is he?"

"Uhn, uh," Mr. A, says.

You notice that some of the jurors are smiling a little at the cartoon. Bob moves onto someone else.

"Ms. C, I notice you smiling, share with us if you would?"

"It's just funny. I mean, cat's hate dogs, but, I mean, just seeing the animals acting like people, you know, that's funny. But, I kinda feel sorry for the dog."

"Yeah, me too, why do you feel bad for the dog?"

"Well, there's just no way he'll get a fair trial," she says.

"Tell me why you feel that way," Bob says.

"Well..." Ms. C stops. She can't seem to put her thoughts into words.

You notice that an older lady down on the front row is sitting straight up in her seat, trying to get Bob's attention.

"Ms. C, do you want to think about if for a second? I notice Ms. D here really wants to say something?"

"Sure." She is obviously relieved. She looks over at Ms. D. In fact, you notice all the jurors are looking at her, so is the judge and so is the prosecutor and his helper. There are extra jurors behind them in the pews. They are all listening, too.

"Ms. D?" Bob says, motioning toward her, "what are your feelings about this?"

"Well, I get what you're trying to do. I mean, I guess its easier to talk about cats and dogs than people. But, I think I'm a little offended that you feel like we won't be fair with your client, like we'd treat him like a bunch of cats would treat a dog if they got a chance. I'm not too happy about that."

You see the prosecutor smile to himself and look at his assistant. They share a meaningful glance and you see her make a mark on the paper.

"Thank you for sharing, Ms. D," Bob says, as he takes a tiny step forward in her direction. "I'm really glad you shared that with me. So, do you feel that I've misjudged you?"

"Yes. I think you've underestimated us."

"How so?"

"Well, you don't give us enough credit. I mean, I know your client is black. But that doesn't mean I can't be fair to him. Does it?"

"Of course not, and I am so happy to hear you say that. I'm so glad you called me out on this. You are definitely the kind of person I want on this jury. I'm hoping you want to be here?"

"Well, yes," Ms. D says, with a smile of pride on her face.

"Thank you, I'm glad. You know, the reason I brought this up is because I worry about this in me. I worry that there are some racist thoughts deep down inside me," Bob says.

You start to squirm a little. Your lawyer is a racist? Is that what he's saying. You really should have taken that deal. You look over at the prosecutor to see if you connect with him. Maybe he'll give you a break.

The prosecutor is staring at Bob. He seems unsure. He has one eyebrow raised in a question mark.

"I grew up in a small suburban town in New Jersey," Bob continues, "there were two black families in town. One father was the mayor and an Harvard educated college professor. The other was a successful business man - an engineer. Their kids were in high school with me. Aside from the color of their skin, they were just like me. They dressed like me. They acted like me. They took the same classes and had the same interests as me. No difference. We didn't really notice the color of their skin. Although, growing up in the seventies, there was no interracial dating. So, while we all socialized and did things together, they never had dates with our peers.

"Anyway, I lived about 15 miles from Newark and about 25 miles from Harlem and the Bronx. In the sixties and early seventies, there were a bunch of riots there. People burned down buildings. Most of our fathers were blue collar businessmen who owned their own businesses and worked hard in their own businesses. I remember the talk about "them and they". If they come here, if they march here, we'll be ready.

"By "ready," that meant that everyone had a loaded shotgun near an upstairs window. Our fathers were ready to barricade the streets leading into town and put up defenses. "They" were not going to burn down our houses or loot our stores. We weren't going to let them get bused in here, either.

"As I got older, there were always news stories about them. About how heroin was rampaging through the ghetto. How they were stealing, committing crimes, stabbing each other, shooting each other, overdosing, it was like a war. In the eighties it was cocaine and in the nineties it was crack. They committed car jackings, rapes, murder. Newark was the car jacking capital of the world. The Newark police told white people from the suburbs not to stop at stop lights or stop signs after dark.

"It was always them. Always the black drug addicts and dealers. It was the black guy with the knife or the gun or the dope. It was the black guy who murdered and raped. Then came the gangs. In the 90s the gangs started to grow and rage through the streets of Newark and New York. They went "wilding". They tore up stores, ripped people off, mugged people, raped women joggers and beat them to death or into a coma. They dealt in crack cocaine. They were evil. They were crazy.

"I know that "them" is not a real group. I get that. I know that people are individuals. But still, deep down in here, down in places I try to hide, in places I don't like to go, I'm scared of them."

Bob stops and looks over at you.

"I'm scared of him, of my client, of Mr. Smith," Bob says. "I'll bet Mr. Smith isn't too happy to hear that, are you?"

"No, sir," you say, but you have a whole lot of other words on your mind. Your emotions cry out clearly through your tone and there is nervous laughter from the jury. The prosecutor starts to his feet again. Bob waves him down, as if to say he won't ask you any more questions. The prosecutor sits down, ready to object if he needs to.

"I'm scared, deep down in my heart, of black criminals, black men who deal drugs, who are in gangs. I'm scared of Mr. Smith. And, as his attorney, I'm scared some of you might feel that way, too. Does anyone feel like I do?"

Inside, you start to relax. You see where he's going. You see a few of the jurors nodding. Ms. D is almost in tears. Mr. A is leaning forward. They're getting ready to talk about this. You can tell. They're interested. You look over and see the frustrated face of the prosecutor. He realized too late where this was going.

The discussion proceeds and the jurors talk through the feelings of fear about people who are different. About black men in prison. About black drug dealers. Black street gangs and gang violence in prison. They start to help Bob feel better about the case. They start to suggest how a juror ought to act, what he ought to think about. They start to talk about you as a person, about how you could be different. They talk about how they feel.

Once they finish the racial topic, they move through some other discussions. The jury is wound up. They are talking. Sometimes, they are talking to each other. Sometimes, with Bob. And, they have all stopped raising their hands or looking scared. They've come together, just like Bob told you they would.

"If you trust them to," he said, "the jury will save you."

"The jury will give you justice."

____________________________________________________________________

We have to acknowledge what is already there. People are scared to talk about racism. It's politically incorrect. But, when I have a client who is a black man alleged to be a member of a gang, violent or a drug dealer, maybe even someone who has been in prison, it is imperative to get the jury talking about what lurks deep down inside of all of us: our fear of "them." 

Gang violence, drugs, guns, and all that are primarily associated with black men and Hispanic men. We are doing our client's a disservice when we ignore the obvious. Our juror's see this every day on television - whether it is in the news or a stereotypical character in a movie or TV drama.

In the end, if you get your jury to talk with you about it, they will begin to realize that they can see your client as a person, as a human being. They will talk about him individually and distinguish him from the group of "them" that scares all of us.

If you ignore this, you do so at the peril of your client. This is his only shot. How can you be sure he has a fair jury if you don't uncover this bit of poison. If you don't it can kill your case. You must extract it, isolate it, neutralize it. You must slice open that snake bite and suck that poison out. There are many ways to approach this, I've just walked through one. It works, but there are other ways. Find what works for you.

And, most of all - trust your jury to be people. Be your real feelings to them - trust them with that - trust them with you fears and concerns about the trial. They will trust you and they will talk with you about it - and, they will be their real feelings to you.  What more could you ask of any juror?

It is for good for your client to think about these things. It is important to the cause of justice. It is an imperative in order to obtain a fair trial. Your fears are the same ones the jurors will feel. Share with them and they will help you overcome them and show you how to deal with them.

Feel free to contact me to discuss this and other trial issues more.

Bob Vogel
Trial Attorney
Knoxville, TN
rlvogel@robertvogellaw.com
865-357-1949