Once I get these last few pages down I'll try to reconstruct the scenario in the jury room as we deliberated the fate of these two bad guys.
The Defense Concludes
Mr. Selvin got up to begin his closing argument. His position was that Mr. Burr had a preponderance of evidence, and he was afraid that that would cause us to neglect regarding each case separately. A difficult task, indeed! Mr. Burr used the physical evidence to show a killing pattern, a man who not only practiced, but perfected his techniques and only got caught due to his fascination with the destruction he had caused.
Logically, Mr. Selvin started with the Stokes/August case. He conceded that it would be foolish to try to deny TC did it. (Really!) However, let's just look at the facts, says he. Charlie carried the gun, but he didn't have a plan to kill anybody that night. Yes. it's terrible the way these people were shot at, but Charlie is sick. He simply pulled out the gun and shot without thinking, a cold act of unpremeditated murder.
Selvin tries to minimize the act to one of second-degree murder. He tries to cast Clark in the role of the shooter in the Rochon case. He discounts the theory that TC "loved" the Desert Eagle, having us consider it as "just another gun", which Charlie would have passed around his circle of criminal friends, one of which was probably the real killer of Laquann Sloan. He puts Clark at the Noyers scene with the Desert Eagle by himself, shooting the girl for whatever reason. He decries the violence of the attempted murders but states that we must judge for ourselves whether or not Charles did it. He says that Stevens' defense rested on the evidence, charging Mr. Burr with the task of proof of guilt against the assumption of innocence. He urges us to seek any shadow of a doubt and cultivate it, not being content to vote with the group.
He's really muddying the waters, and gets so frothy at the mouth and emotional that the spit literally flies out of his mouth. It's not easy to look at him. Leigh, a juror in the front row, was having a really hard time. She's particularly affected by Mr. Selvin's histrionics.
Clark's Conclusion
Mr. Zimmer re-hashed the argument that Richard was pressured into his confession bith by over-zealous cops and his need to comply with authority figures due to his childhood exposure to abuse. To his credit, he did not attempt to argue for a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, taking the high road all the way in insisting that Richard was not even there.
Instructions
On Monday morning, March 22, the judge read us the instructions, defining our role as a jury, the definitions of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and special circumstances.
We went up to the jury room, and within minutes I was nominated and selected foreman of the jury by acclamation. Whew! Jan says it's just people seeing the light that shines from me. Well, I haven't tried to campaign for it but I've accepted their choice. I'll do my best. As we reach each verdict I will put my signature on the bottom of the sheet, indicating a unanimous opinion.
We spent the first day of deliberations speaking about each case in detail and in general. Outside of the Noyers case it looks as if we will be concurring with Mr. Burr as to the charges. I haven't tried to guess anybody's mind up 'til now, but it looks as if we're all in agreement about TC's guilt. This guy is in a lot of trouble. We'll be talking about the two most difficult cases tomorrow: Leslie Noyers and Laquann Sloan.
We had lunch at the expense of the taxpayers of Alameda County today, going to Jack's Bar & Grill at Jack London Square. Nobody's drinking alcohol, which is really for the best.
I don't think this part will take very long. The hard part will be the penalty phase. Really hard.
Thus concludes the journal of Juror #5 in the capital murder case against Charles Arnett Stevens. My memories of the events following these will continue the tale.
No comments:
Post a Comment