- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,911
I spent most of last week serving on a jury for the U. S. Western District Court in Seattle. Throughout the time I was involved, I was sworn to secrecy until the trial was over. We wrapped it up on Friday afternoon, so now I can tell you more about the case. It was indeed a very interesting case.
On September 9, 2013 the DEA in conjunction with local law enforcement officers served a search warrant on a home in Tacoma. This came after months of surveillance and covert operations, including a few controlled buys and one buy-bust. During the search they found a total of 20 bundles of narcotics, each weighing about 3 pounds, including the weight of the packaging. The news reports at the time called it a 64 pound stash. Some time later the DEA analyzed the packages and found that 15 contained Mexican black tar heroin, and the other 5 had (which had once been the same) had degraded to the point where they were now only morphine.
At the time of the seizure, there were three people living in the house and two girlfriends that visited frequently. The three people would best be described as the boss and two runners, whose job it was to break up the big blocks and sell pieces (25g chunks) to street level dealers in the area (Tacoma, Lakewood, Puyallup, et al).
During the trial we heard about 20 hours of testimony and evidence from the prosecution, providing FAR more information about heroin dealing, use, and side effects than any of us jurors wanted. Of course we also heard evidence linking the defendant to the criminal charges (conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute, and to distribute, heroin and morphine, and the act of possession with intent to distribute the same).
Throughout that testimony the defense attorney seemed only to want to diminish the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence through any means possible. For example, one significant piece of evidence was that three of the 20 packages were found in the defendants suitcase, in the room where he was staying (and where he was arrested). Also in the suitcase was a pair of Levis 501 size 36W x 30L. The defense attorney tried to make the case that the suitcase or its contents didnt belong to the defendant because those jeans didnt fit the defendant (a la the Johnny Cochran argument, if it doesnt fit you must acquit). However, the remaining contents of the suitcase clearly proved it did belong to the defendant. When the defendant was questioned after the arrest why there were narcotics in his suitcase he responded, I dont know why there were narcotics in my suitcase. He did not assert that the suitcase was not his, nor would such a claim have been meaningful given all the other evidence (including numerous documents, such as a bank statement, with his name on them).
Once the prosecution rested the defense only called a scant few witnesses. One of which was the lead officer who sat on the prosecution bench throughout the trial. At no time during the defense presentation was an alternative narrative of the events provided. The entire thrust of the defense was to inject uncertainty about the validity or meaning of the evidence that was accepted and presented. I dont think the defense presentation lasted even two hours. Once that was done we were given our final instructions and dismissed for the day. When we came back on Friday morning we heard the closing arguments for about two hours. After that the alternates were randomly selected and dismissed from the panel, and the remaining jurors went into deliberation.
Our first order of business was to select the presiding juror (a.k.a. the foreman), and I was selected. We took an initial straw poll and found that 8 were already decided, and four were still undecided. So I first went through the process of reviewing the final instructions and making sure we understood what we were being asked to decide, so we wouldnt waste time talking about things we did not need to decide.
We then set about gathering the areas of concern for the undecided jurors, so we could focus our discussion on resolving those concerns. In essence the main concern was that there was no DIRECT evidence (finger prints, DNA, or the like) that tied the defendant to the drugs. The finger print evidence on the bundles was scant (three finger prints, two palm prints, none ties to anyone in the house). There was no mention of DNA evidence. However, there was a small journal found in the defendants room that had notations indicating receipt and distribution of quantities, as well as the phone numbers of all the runners. There were also phone records for the phone found on the defendant at the time of arrest showing numerous calls to/from the runners. Moreover, there was a lot of other evidence (testimony and physical evidence) that showed the defendant was clearly not engaged in setting up a landscaping business (a lie he told to the landlord) or just passing through on the way to Canada (a lie he told the arresting officers).
A secondary concern was whether we needed to define the exact amount of heroin and/or morphine the defendant was guilty of possessing. We sent a question to the judge to resolve that and it turned out we did not need to agree on that, so that question was set aside.
After about two hours of analysis and discussion, we were in unanimous agreement that he was guilty of both counts and rendered our verdict accordingly. We were then ushered back into the court room and the judge asked for the verdict. I handed it to the clerk and the judge then read it aloud to the court. After that she took a poll of the jury, asking each of us the same three questions:
Is this the verdict of the jury?
Is this also your verdict?
Is this your verdict as to all particulars?
Each of us in turn answered Yes to all questions. The judge then said, The verdict is therefore in order, Mr. Davis, and will be entered as such. We were then thanked for our service, released from our oaths of silence, and after some lighter conversation we were dismissed from the court.
During the trial, the jurors were repeatedly admonished not to do any outside investigation on any matter pertaining to the trial. To the best of my knowledge, none of us did. After the trial was over I checked around and found that there had been a number of these sorts of heroin dealing operations set up over the last few years in the Tacoma area. Knock one down and another pops up in a year or two. By all accounts, however, this was clearly one of the largest busts of this sort.
So while I take some satisfaction that we helped to remove one bad egg from the streets of Washington, I have no illusion that the problem is solved. We stood up and did our part, but there will always be more than needs to be done.
On September 9, 2013 the DEA in conjunction with local law enforcement officers served a search warrant on a home in Tacoma. This came after months of surveillance and covert operations, including a few controlled buys and one buy-bust. During the search they found a total of 20 bundles of narcotics, each weighing about 3 pounds, including the weight of the packaging. The news reports at the time called it a 64 pound stash. Some time later the DEA analyzed the packages and found that 15 contained Mexican black tar heroin, and the other 5 had (which had once been the same) had degraded to the point where they were now only morphine.
At the time of the seizure, there were three people living in the house and two girlfriends that visited frequently. The three people would best be described as the boss and two runners, whose job it was to break up the big blocks and sell pieces (25g chunks) to street level dealers in the area (Tacoma, Lakewood, Puyallup, et al).
During the trial we heard about 20 hours of testimony and evidence from the prosecution, providing FAR more information about heroin dealing, use, and side effects than any of us jurors wanted. Of course we also heard evidence linking the defendant to the criminal charges (conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute, and to distribute, heroin and morphine, and the act of possession with intent to distribute the same).
Throughout that testimony the defense attorney seemed only to want to diminish the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence through any means possible. For example, one significant piece of evidence was that three of the 20 packages were found in the defendants suitcase, in the room where he was staying (and where he was arrested). Also in the suitcase was a pair of Levis 501 size 36W x 30L. The defense attorney tried to make the case that the suitcase or its contents didnt belong to the defendant because those jeans didnt fit the defendant (a la the Johnny Cochran argument, if it doesnt fit you must acquit). However, the remaining contents of the suitcase clearly proved it did belong to the defendant. When the defendant was questioned after the arrest why there were narcotics in his suitcase he responded, I dont know why there were narcotics in my suitcase. He did not assert that the suitcase was not his, nor would such a claim have been meaningful given all the other evidence (including numerous documents, such as a bank statement, with his name on them).
Once the prosecution rested the defense only called a scant few witnesses. One of which was the lead officer who sat on the prosecution bench throughout the trial. At no time during the defense presentation was an alternative narrative of the events provided. The entire thrust of the defense was to inject uncertainty about the validity or meaning of the evidence that was accepted and presented. I dont think the defense presentation lasted even two hours. Once that was done we were given our final instructions and dismissed for the day. When we came back on Friday morning we heard the closing arguments for about two hours. After that the alternates were randomly selected and dismissed from the panel, and the remaining jurors went into deliberation.
Our first order of business was to select the presiding juror (a.k.a. the foreman), and I was selected. We took an initial straw poll and found that 8 were already decided, and four were still undecided. So I first went through the process of reviewing the final instructions and making sure we understood what we were being asked to decide, so we wouldnt waste time talking about things we did not need to decide.
We then set about gathering the areas of concern for the undecided jurors, so we could focus our discussion on resolving those concerns. In essence the main concern was that there was no DIRECT evidence (finger prints, DNA, or the like) that tied the defendant to the drugs. The finger print evidence on the bundles was scant (three finger prints, two palm prints, none ties to anyone in the house). There was no mention of DNA evidence. However, there was a small journal found in the defendants room that had notations indicating receipt and distribution of quantities, as well as the phone numbers of all the runners. There were also phone records for the phone found on the defendant at the time of arrest showing numerous calls to/from the runners. Moreover, there was a lot of other evidence (testimony and physical evidence) that showed the defendant was clearly not engaged in setting up a landscaping business (a lie he told to the landlord) or just passing through on the way to Canada (a lie he told the arresting officers).
A secondary concern was whether we needed to define the exact amount of heroin and/or morphine the defendant was guilty of possessing. We sent a question to the judge to resolve that and it turned out we did not need to agree on that, so that question was set aside.
After about two hours of analysis and discussion, we were in unanimous agreement that he was guilty of both counts and rendered our verdict accordingly. We were then ushered back into the court room and the judge asked for the verdict. I handed it to the clerk and the judge then read it aloud to the court. After that she took a poll of the jury, asking each of us the same three questions:
Is this the verdict of the jury?
Is this also your verdict?
Is this your verdict as to all particulars?
Each of us in turn answered Yes to all questions. The judge then said, The verdict is therefore in order, Mr. Davis, and will be entered as such. We were then thanked for our service, released from our oaths of silence, and after some lighter conversation we were dismissed from the court.
During the trial, the jurors were repeatedly admonished not to do any outside investigation on any matter pertaining to the trial. To the best of my knowledge, none of us did. After the trial was over I checked around and found that there had been a number of these sorts of heroin dealing operations set up over the last few years in the Tacoma area. Knock one down and another pops up in a year or two. By all accounts, however, this was clearly one of the largest busts of this sort.
So while I take some satisfaction that we helped to remove one bad egg from the streets of Washington, I have no illusion that the problem is solved. We stood up and did our part, but there will always be more than needs to be done.
