Jury Duty: Part 3

During the entire trial, I was fairly convinced that the prosecution did not have a compelling case. The prosecutor's summation was a disaster. Why bother presenting so much technical evidence, police officers, ballistics, endless photographs of doorways, videos and recorded phone calls if you then undermine it by saying that the most credible and important part of the evidence is the testimony by two eyewitnesses? I would think that eyewitnesses can be unreliable and that hard evidence trumps recollection, but the problem, and I think they knew it, is that they didn't have much to go with. The prosecutor was not a compelling speaker and a rather disorganized presenter. He needs an acting coach.
The defense lawyer, court appointed, I believe, did a much better job in trying to raise our doubts, which is all he needs to do to be effective. He was far more eloquent and had a better sense of narrative. He was a big man, like a more handsome, younger version of Charles Durning. I thought he was pretty good.
At first I was convinced the prosecution did not have a case.  But the more I think about it, and I guess this is the intention and wisdom of deliberation, the more I can, in retrospect, see culpability, even though the connections are not 100% solid.
But here's the thing. The guy deserves to be off the streets even though the evidence against him may be shaky. Do you ignore this fact and, using your common sense, do a favor to the city and lock him up? Or do you really follow the instructions to the letter and acquit him, letting him out on the streets again?
I think something similar may have happened in the Casey Anthony trial, which I didn't follow, but I did follow the uproar after the verdict. Shoddy police work makes convictions difficult. Jurors feel a huge sense of responsibility and if they follow the judge's instructions to the letter of the law, they may vote to acquit, even if this runs contrary to the hunches in their hearts.
I did not get a full sense of who the jurors were and what they think, because we were a very obedient group and did not discuss the case among ourselves (that I know of). It was a mixed group of Manhattanites, racially, economically and professionally diverse, from people who seem pretty streetwise, to coddled liberal intellectuals and everything in between. I have a feeling there are several very smart and common-sensical New Yorkers in this dozen. I hope that the jury, as the judge instructed, uses their common sense and not their sympathy, prejudice, ideology or fears.
As I write this right now, having deliberated only with myself, I'm thinking: lock him up and throw away the key.

Jury Duty: Part 2

The first eyewitness lives in the same building as the defendant and claims he sells drugs from the corner every night.  He said he saw him from his fifth floor window shooting with a gun in his hand. And when the police secured the block, he went down to accuse him. He was a very colorful witness, an older man from Liberia, who is in the community board and is the president of the association of Liberian immigrants. He was not letting the defense confuse him. It is entirely possible that he is telling the truth. But he also has a vested interest in removing this punk from his block because he is a menace to the neighborhood. However, selling drugs is not what the defendant was charged with. I wonder how it is possible that a known drug dealer commandeers an entire city block and everybody knows it, but nobody can stop him. Perhaps this shootout was the police's opportunity to put him away.
The second eyewitness was a 30 year old female drug abuser out of central casting, a white woman hardened by drugs. Defiant and bad mannered, she didn't even try to appear reformed although she protested that she has been clean for 18 months. The defense argued, although I think it was stricken from the record, that she did it because she made a deal with the DA to get into a drug treatment program instead of more jail time for selling. The most unbelievable part of her testimony was that she knew the defendant and went to his apartment thousands of times, where she allegedly saw lots of guns, but could not remember what floor it was on (2nd). And even more unbelievably, that they gave drugs to one another, like boy scouts sharing s'mores on a camping trip. Really? Out of the goodness of their hearts? I assume sharing drugs in exchange for blow jobs is more like it.
So two eyewitnesses, one with a vested interest in removing this pest from his building, and the other one perhaps doing it to save her own skin.
We are told we are going to watch surveillance videos. I think, cool, we will see the guy with the gun in his hand shooting: hard, incontrovertible evidence. But the quality of the videos is abysmal, and there is no way that you can determine with any accuracy that what he is holding in his hand is a gun. What else could he be holding, I don't know. A bag of drugs? A granola bar? When you freeze frame a movie in your DVD you see everything in perfect detail. Surveillance companies need better video cameras. So the video is for shit, and in my view, actually hinders the prosecution's efforts. If I were to deliberate I would ask to see those tapes in detail again.
The most damning evidence, in my view, were some recorded phone calls the defendant made from jail. Fully aware that he is being recorded, he asks his mother  to go get a woman on the block who knows a guy who can get in through the window of his apartment and retrieve an "x-box" (the police had secured it and changed the locks). An undercover police officer later testified that this is a code name for firearm.  Then he calls another apparent drug dealer to ask him to do the same.
When his buddy finally tells him he retrieved the "x-box", this guy gets so victoriously happy you can almost picture him jumping for joy.
The calls were appalling. I could see why there was no way this guy could open his mouth on his own defense. He speaks with the foul language and grandstanding of a street thug ("nigger this", "nigger that", "my fucking lawyer," etc) but with his mother he adopts a whiny, wholly unconvincing voice when she asks him what kind of shit he has done now. He promises the buddy to go out on a night on the town for him and is convinced not only that he is home safe but that he has a lawsuit against the police. Apparently, they turned the place upside down. On the phone, he gloats that they could not find anything, not one drug, not one weapon. He has a hiding place for drugs inside the bathroom door. The guy is a pro.
But do these calls prove that he had a gun in his hand and was shooting it the night of the incident? Or do they prove that he possesses a gun unlawfully? They may prove the two charges of criminal possession, if anything. And they may point to consciousness of guilt, but is this the same as actual criminal action?
The most bizarre incident occurred the day of the eyewitnesses testimony, when the Liberian man suddenly interrupted his testimony saying that he was being signaled. They let us out of the courtroom for a good while and when we came back he claimed that the defendant had mouthed threatening words to him as he was on the stand. I wonder if any of the jurors, particularly those who had a clear view of the defense table, saw what happened. As we were instructed not to talk about this between ourselves, nobody said anything. Then the woman who was assisting the DA as an intern also testified that she saw the defendant make a sign of cutting the throat of the drug addict witness, but the witness never came back so we don't know if she saw him threaten her or not. The defense lawyer raised a stink about that one.
It is rather risky if not downright stupid, for this punk to do something like that right in front of the judge, the jury, the bailiffs, the prosecution and the court reporter and I'm dying to know if any juror actually saw this happen, because if they did, the guy is gonna fry. One of the jurors was called out of the jury room and she may have had something to report to the judge, but I don't know what.
The day of jury selection, the defendant looked straight at me. He looked sheepish with a shirt and a tie and glasses. I could not interpret whether the glare he sent my way was "mami, I dig your curls" or "you better vote in my favor", but either way it was not endearing. 
A couple of days later, we saw the pictures of him under arrest and his attire was textbook ghetto punk. Another thing: why was he wearing the same clothes he wore during the shootout when he was arrested hours later? Now that I think of it, the guy is 40 years old but he looks like an overgrown child. So he is not really a young man, he just acts like one. It was mentioned he has an 8 year old son. The day of the closing statements, I arrived early and saw the defense attorney speak with a woman and a kid around that age. They sat in the courtroom the entire day. The kid slept the whole time. The lawyer did not mention them or point them out to us, but they were the only spectators. I saw the woman react to the replay of the phone conversation with the mother. She was shaking her head.


To be continued...

Jury Duty

I do not watch Law & Order or CSI: San Bernardino, or any of those shows. Everything seems formulaic and too easy. They bore me. A real trial, however, is both tedious and endlessly fascinating. Most of all, it is extremely complicated.
I have been pining to be chosen as a juror since I became an American citizen. People think I've lost my last marble, but I wanted the opportunity to see how this system works in reality. I am a frustrated criminal lawyer, detective and/or Supreme Court judge.
I come from Mexico, a country that has an utterly depraved legal system, medieval and corrupt to the core. We don't have juries, we have miserably paid and not always thoroughly trained judges who usually take bribes to supplement their incomes. There is no presumption of innocence. Nothing prevents a corrupt police officer or anyone with power to accuse innocent people of crimes and lock them away forever. The presumption of innocence, which supposedly is coming to the Mexican legal system soon, is not only an important defense against state tyranny, but also a pillar of civilization. You people do not realize what you have here.

I got my wish last week, but with a slightly perverse twist. I was chosen as Alternate Juror No. 2. This meant that I had to sit through the trial but was dismissed before deliberations. I missed the most stressful and perhaps most interesting part, but I am immensely relieved. It is a huge responsibility to decide the fate of a person. And unlike on TV, in this case, the DA did not present a clean, open and shut case. It was full of holes, despite the fact that the defendant does seem to be a blight upon this city, probably did it and should probably not be allowed to walk our streets. I'm dying to know what verdict the jurors reached, but, I'd be surprised if they vote to convict.
The defendant, a young Latino man, was accused of participating in a shootout in the middle of 109th St between Amsterdam and Columbus Ave at 9:25 pm on a Summer night in 2009. He was accused of carrying and firing a gun with intent to kill. The motive: another drug dealer encroaching on his turf. The four charges against the defendant were Attempted Assault on the First Degree, two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon, one with intent to cause serious bodily harm and one as unlawful possession outside the home or place of business, and Reckless Endangerment.
Five bullet casings were recovered from a .25 caliber revolver, and a spent bullet from a .40 caliber automatic, I believe.
People who testified said they heard a lot of shots, so more shots were fired than evidence found. A 13 year old boy was slightly injured when a bullet grazed his leg. Shots were fired from a red pick up truck. When you think that this could happen on your street, you just want to lock everybody away.
About 10 police officers testified about the crime scene, evidence collection, ballistics. A small handgun was recovered on top of some garbage bags. It was not tied in any compelling way to the defendant. Not by DNA or fingerprinting. I don't remember if they clarified who this gun belonged to. The person the defendant allegedly shot at was also arrested but did not testify.
None of the police officers were able to remember the time of the arrest. The arresting officer, I believe, lost his note book, where such information is supposed to appear. He spoke to a witness that identified the defendant as the shooter and who knew where he lived, yet he did not arrest him or even go look for him until the next day. None of them saw the suspect with a gun in his hand at any time.
Since the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, they showed their evidence first. The prosecutor, a slight, young Chinese American man, did not give the jury a compelling causal and chronological narrative and the evidence was presented piecemeal. Now I don't know if this is because he was just not an organized presenter or because he is not allowed to thread a narrative that would make us see the crime as it happened. But the police evidence was confusing, and he never arrived at a story that could help the jury understand clearly how the incident happened.
According to the defendant's statement to the police, he saw a guy dealing drugs on his street and went down to tell him he should not do it. As if! Can you imagine yourself seeing guys dealing drugs on your block and telling them in their face to scram? I didn't think so. In the statement the police took, apparently he confessed to having a gun. This statement was presented as evidence, but not read in its entirety. Why? And how come that the police detective who took the statement was not called to testify?
There were dozens of photographs of the buildings on the block and endlessly boring testimony about where people were. I don't yet understand what purpose this served except to confuse the jury.
Of the dozens of people who ran for their safety that night, only 2 people agreed to testify.


To be continued...

Pie A La Mode

The highlight of my year, I'm almost tempted to say my life so far, has been to see in an endless instant replay loop the moment Wendi Murdoch stands by her man and tries to counter attack the pie thrower, as if she was in an episode of Jerry Springer.
I will love this moment forever and I don't even know why, but I suspect it has to do with the refreshing unraveling of the ruthless vulgarity of this family. Contrary to the opinion of a lot of people, I do not feel sorry for Rupert Murdoch, with or without a pie in the face. He deserves worse. As Stephen Colbert suggested, maybe a kidney pie would be more fitting.
However, the pie throwing incident made me ponder an important issue:
Why shaving cream instead of whipped cream?
Shaving cream leaves the victim smelling like three hundred cologne wearers crammed into a subway car, which is not necessarily a good thing. It probably stings the eyes and tastes horrible. Whereas good old fashioned whipped cream is sticky, so that finally flies can overcome their queasiness and hang on to the victim, but the upside is that it's yummy and you can lick it off yourself (unless it's curdled, which could be an interestingly cruel version).
Such are the things that preoccupy me this ridiculously hot and humid morning.

News of News of The World

So Rebekah Brooks, she of News Of The World infamy, finally resigned. This after an entire newspaper was shut down and hundreds of jobs were lost in order to protect her cushy job. Her resignation letter is repulsive. Her former employers are even more repulsive and they have handled this crisis terribly.
And guess what I learned today in the NYT: Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia is News Corporation’s second biggest shareholder, after the Murdochs. 
I find it rich that a royal from that atrocious country where there is no freedom of anything, not even of women driving, and whose royal family has ties to the attacks on 9/11, has shares in this media company.
As we say in Mexico, guácala (Eew).   

On The Subject of Tacos

I hear raves about this Rockaway Taco place. We pass by and the line of hipsters threatens to engulf all of Brooklyn. This immediately makes me suspicious, plus there is no way I'm standing in line for this, even though a taco right now would really come in handy. However, it's not only the hipsters that scare me off.
When you go to a really crowded taco place in Mexico, you NEVER have to wait more than a couple of minutes for your taco. The reason is that Mexican taqueros are like the Samurais of food. Their speed and agility are legend. It doesn't take them forever to assemble a taco. They do it so fast, their hands are a blur. This is important because the whole point of the taco is to satisfy your hunger fast and to be hot and right off the grill and not sitting there waiting for someone to add unnecessary radishes and shreds of insipid iceberg lettuce that have no point being anywhere near a taco. No gringo place that I know has been able to master the Mexican taco system. None. So as we say in Spanish, tache for slowness.
Then, the mother of all horrors: they sell Tofu tacos.
American people, lines must be drawn. I appreciate your obsession with melting pots and hybrids but tofu tacos is a resounding NO. WAY. IN. HELL.
There is absolutely no need for a tofu taco. You can have the tastiest vegetarian tacos, you can have bean tacos, if you need the protein. A tofu taco is a huge red flag and I'm not buying it.
Interestingly, we were there with my friend Maribel, the proud owner of the delicious Caracas Arepa Bar chain of Venezuelan restaurants.
"Why not a tofu taco?", she said.
"Imagine for a moment, Maribel, a tofu arepa", said none other than The Magnificent Arepa herself. Maribel's face contorted into a minute grimace.
I bet she would not serve that even at gunpoint. Not even to Chavez on his deathbed (whether to save him or to finish him off).
Love our food, respect our food, play around, if you must, with our food, but it better make sense.

Today On I've Had It With Hollywood

Errol Morris' fun new film: Tabloid.

News Digest

The Casey Anthony Trial
I must be the only person in this country who did not follow the Casey Anthony trial. Not once. I vaguely remember hearing about it and nothing else until the non-guilty verdict. This is what happens when you don't have cable. However, I have been glued to anything with the initials DSK on it.  Perhaps I find it hard to muster curiosity about a crime in Florida committed by trashy people. Call me a snob. I much prefer the sleaze of the former president of the IMF and the now possible sleaze of an immigrant chambermaid.
I'm writing this as I sit and wait in Jury Duty.

News of The News Of The World
Again, had heard about Sienna Miller and Hugh Grant having their phones hacked, but what transpired with that poor murdered girl, the families of fallen soldiers, Murdoch's cozy relationship with David Cameron, who once employed the very same guy who is now arrested for hacking phones, and the fact that Murdoch would rather close a newspaper and leave people jobless, than sacrifice his deputy in evil, make this quite irresistible. That the British police, which in my fantasy were supposed to be a model of probity, were colluding with this trashy paper which, like the New York Post, is not fit for people to scoop up dog poop, this is actually shocking to me.
I'm exuberantly delighted that the untouchable Rupert Murdoch finally got his brass balls dipped in acid. Let it rip.

Facundo Cabral Gets Murdered in Guatemala
Poor guy. He happens to ride with a Guatemalan impresario and gets sprayed with bullets in that hellhole of a country. I am not a fan of his mawkish protest folk music, but geez, what's with the endless, stupid violence?

Today On I've Had It With Hollywood

Rapt, a fabulous French thriller that may remind you of DSK.

We The People

As seen in the West Village on July 4:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Better than the ubiquitous flags.