interesting jury duty experience

[Rhone]

The other post on jury duty got me thinking about my one jury experience, which I found pretty interesting. This happened a couple of years ago, but I think I have the details right.

local district court, criminal trial. The guy is charged with two counts.

1. Attempted Robbery
the police are observing this guy for a while, and they watch him park his car, walk behind a Denny's type restaurant, and croutch in some tall grass behind the place, where he could observe the back exit where employees would go to take out the garbage. It's dark, right around closing time. After about ten minutes, he gets up, goes back to his car, and drives off. The police who have been watching him pull him over, and find a stocking on his head, some duct tape, and a toy pistol. He is charged with attempted robbery against the manager of the restaurant.

What say ye, OOT, guilty or innocent?

2. Theft
A half hour before the incident I described above, the same guy walked into a supermarket, where the store security camera catches him reaching over the customer service counter and taking a carton of cigarettes. We are given images from the camera showing this, and it's pretty clear. This store sells the same brand duct tape and stockings that he was caught with in his car a bit later. He is charged with stealing the duct tape and stockings, but not the cigarettes!

What say ye, OOT, guilty or innocent?

[Thythe]

If this is all the information and charges, then it's clearly not guilty (not innocent though).

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is all the information and charges, then it's clearly not guilty (not innocent though).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not holding any of the details back, but I will mention that on the second charge, the judge specifically told us that according to the (Maryland) law, circumstantial evidence is to be given just as much weight as non-circumstantial evidence.

[gvibes]

The first one: we just covered this in my bar review class yesterday, and I would say that he is clearly guilty, as he had taken a "substantial" step towards completion of the crime.

The second one: if that's all you had, I'd have a hard time finding him guilty. If you did, he must have had a really crappy lawyer.

[maldini]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this is all the information and charges, then it's clearly not guilty (not innocent though).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not holding any of the details back, but I will mention that on the second charge, the judge specifically told us that according to the (Maryland) law, circumstantial evidence is to be given just as much weight as non-circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

i say: screw maryland law. give the evidence the weight you feel it deserves. i've never understood this view of jury duty. your job is administer justice not punish according to guidelines decided by maryland law someone who may or may not have violated maryland law.

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this is all the information and charges, then it's clearly not guilty (not innocent though).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not holding any of the details back, but I will mention that on the second charge, the judge specifically told us that according to the (Maryland) law, circumstantial evidence is to be given just as much weight as non-circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

i say: screw maryland law. give the evidence the weight you feel it deserves. i've never understood this view of jury duty. your job is administer justice not punish according to guidelines decided by maryland law someone who may or may not have violated maryland law.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...I would say that you just perfectly described exactly what your job is to do on jury duty.

[Rhone]

here are the results for anyone who is interested.

On the first count, attempted robbery, we hung 6-6. Several of us felt pretty strongly that you ought to be given a chance to change your mind about committing a crime, which is what this guy did for whatever reason. Another interesting idea that was floated in the jury room was that the evidence pointed to a variety of potential crimes: rape, kidnapping, murder, for example, and that the state didn't prove attempted robbery as being any more likely than any of these other crimes.

On the second count, theft of two items on the basis of having been caught stealing a third (and having the two in his possession), we also hung, but this time it was 10-2 in favor of conviction.

After the trial the judge let us ask him some questions, and he seemed as confused as we were as to why the prosecution didn't try the guy on the theft of the cigarettes, which we obviously would have convicted him of without a second thought.

[bighomage]

I just don't understand how the accused could be guilty of the first charge. Sure, it's pretty clear he was thinking about robbing the store, but he didn't and he didn't even really try. It sure looked like he was going to do something wrong, but he didn't.

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand how the accused could be guilty of the first charge. Sure, it's pretty clear he was thinking about robbing the store, but he didn't and he didn't even really try. It sure looked like he was going to do something wrong, but he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds kinda like that Tom Cruise movie from a few yrs back.

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand how the accused could be guilty of the first charge. Sure, it's pretty clear he was thinking about robbing the store, but he didn't and he didn't even really try. It sure looked like he was going to do something wrong, but he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, half the jury members, including myself, agreed with you, and that's why we hung. My gut tells me that most of those voting to convict him just generally felt like he was a bad guy and thought they were doing society a favor by putting him away. I can't say I was entirely unsympathetic to that argument, but in my mind at least, the prosecution didn't prove attempted robbery beyond a reasonable doubt, so I felt good voting to acquit.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...the judge specifically told us that according to the (Maryland) law, circumstantial evidence is to be given just as much weight as non-circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the judge give any instructions in regards to the first count? Somebody mentioned that taking significant steps such as donning a mask and waiting in the weeds is sufficient. Did the judge, or either lawyer, address this?

Because I couldn't imagine reaching a verdict on that one without either a law degree, or having the law explained to us by the judge or prosecutor.

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand how the accused could be guilty of the first charge. Sure, it's pretty clear he was thinking about robbing the store, but he didn't and he didn't even really try. It sure looked like he was going to do something wrong, but he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the law. If someone points a loaded gun at you, and pulls the trigger, but the gun jams, would you find that person innocent of attempted murder?

The Model Penal Code uses a "substantial steps" test, which gives a lot of leeway to a jury. I'm not sure if Maryland takes this route. Under the MPC, an attempt requires "conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the offense." I think sitting in the weeds outside the place at closing time, with a fake pistol, and a mask on, is definitely good enough. If a man were standing outside your window right now, carrying a knife and a lockpicking kit, and wearing a mask, you'd hope the police would be able to get him on more than trespassing.

The OP brings up an interesting point, that we don't know whether the guy was going to rob, or rape, or whatever. However, I think they could have got him on burglary in any event (basically, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony - I think I got that right).


EDIT: - Maryland law - "Under Maryland law, a criminal attempt consists of a specific intent to commit the offense coupled with some overt act in furtherance of the intent which goes beyond mere preparation." I think the prosecution must have sucked here, for the prosecution to lose.

EDIT2: When I was 19, I was jury foreman on a little car accident case. It was fun.

[somethingstupid]

Is this legal? Sweet jesus. You are asking OOT for advice ON A [censored] TRIAL ON WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE JURY. I am disturbed by this.

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this legal? Sweet jesus. You are asking OOT for advice ON A [censored] TRIAL ON WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE JURY. I am disturbed by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its over....i'll be nice and say that is all.

[PhatTBoll]

gvibes,

I'm studying for the bar too and I think this is not attempted robbery. The MPC says that the "overt act" must be a "substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime."

I don't think anything he did could be reasonably said to "culminate in the commission of the crime." I think it is close though.

Definitely NOT burglary though. I suggest you look up the definition for this.

Edit: You could also make a case that the defendant has abandoned his attempt here, although we'd need more facts to see if that was the case.

[Duke]

1. Not guilty.

2. Not guilty.

Next?

~D

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...the judge specifically told us that according to the (Maryland) law, circumstantial evidence is to be given just as much weight as non-circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the judge give any instructions in regards to the first count? Somebody mentioned that taking significant steps such as donning a mask and waiting in the weeds is sufficient. Did the judge, or either lawyer, address this?

Because I couldn't imagine reaching a verdict on that one without either a law degree, or having the law explained to us by the judge or prosecutor.

[/ QUOTE ]

He explained the "substantial step" idea that gvibes and PhatTBoll are debating here. Our debate was over whether the guy's actions met that standard, and also whether even if he was "attempting" something, whether the state proved it was robbery as opposed to something else.

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this legal? Sweet jesus. You are asking OOT for advice ON A [censored] TRIAL ON WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE JURY. I am disturbed by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, read.

[ QUOTE ]
This happened a couple of years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

[BadBoyBenny]

Sounds innocent to me based on the evidence you gave. The cops pushed their hand too early.

[Rhone]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP brings up an interesting point, that we don't know whether the guy was going to rob, or rape, or whatever. However, I think they could have got him on burglary in any event (basically, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony - I think I got that right).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it have been breaking and entering if he was waiting for an employee to open the back door? I don't know. The prosecution was really pushing the idea of what he was going to do once he was inside, rather than how he was going to enter. The restaurant was still technically open, so perhaps they would have had trouble arguing that the act of entering the place would have been illegal.

I'm just remembering something else about this trial that I found kind of interesting. The prosecutor asked each of the six or so police officers who testified what units they had served on in their careers. Most of them said they had been on the "repeat offenders unit" at some point. I thought this was kind of a slimy tactic, a backdoor way of telling us this guy had done bad things in the past when the prosecution wasn't allowed to do so directly.

Overall, though, a very interesting two days...

[BadBoyBenny]

Excatly, it is possible he thought about attempting robbery and then chickened out before he actually attempted it. Also, if they have cameras where is the footage of him stealing the duct tape? I stole some baseball cards from WalMart when I was 13, that doesn't mean I stole my groceries last time I shopped there.

[gvibes]

[ QUOTE ]
gvibes,

I'm studying for the bar too and I think this is not attempted robbery. The MPC says that the "overt act" must be a "substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime."

I don't think anything he did could be reasonably said to "culminate in the commission of the crime." I think it is close though.

Definitely NOT burglary though. I suggest you look up the definition for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I need to some reviewing this weekend.