RSS
Richardson case mistrial: Another perspective from the jury room
Your April 12 article, “Mistrial Declared in Jewu Richardson Case…,” gave prominent coverage to two “hold-out” jurors who deadlocked the deliberations and forced a mistrial.
For their role in keeping the 6-person jury from reaching any verdict on any of the 10 counts against Mr. Richardson, these two jurors were embraced and praised by activist groups rallying against police brutality. The outcome of mistrial was hailed as a vindication for their broader cause.
We, too, were on the jury in this case. We were astonished to learn that this is how the trial has been characterized in the public eye.
Mr. Richardson was on trial for a variety of charges, most involving motor-vehicle-related violations, such as driving while intoxicated and reckless driving. The trial was an effort to enforce the laws that forbid such behavior. These laws protect public safety. We believe no worthy cause or principle was served by the forcing of a mistrial.
For two weeks we sat through presentations of evidence from both the prosecution and defense. Day after day we concentrated on detailed testimony involving civilian and police eyewitnesses, written reports, maps, diagrams, audio and video recordings, photographic evidence, accident reconstructions, forensic experts, etc.
On retiring to deliberate, we found that not all jurors felt obliged to focus exclusively on this mass of evidence in determining the facts of the case. For some jurors, distrust of the police provided sufficient rationale to “vote their conscience” without further debate.
Our assignment was to determine Mr. Richardson’s guilt or innocence on each count. The possibility that he might be guilty on some counts and not guilty on others seemed the obvious starting point -- to most of us.
Most of the counts against Mr. Richardson required factual determinations about his own behavior, totally unrelated to the actions of the police. The questions of whether, for example, he was driving drunk or recklessly, or was involved in car collisions, did not require any consideration of what the police (or anyone else) did or did not do that night (or any other time).
We understand that strong emotions may overwhelm a person’s objectivity. Faced with a mountain of complicated, technical, sometimes contradictory evidence, coupled with instructions cross-referenced to heavy legalese, not all people can sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. Such people may be sincere and well intentioned. But they should not be jurors. Nor should anyone who cannot isolate themselves from influences originating outside the courtroom -- a fundamental obligation to which we all swore under oath.
For those picketing in protest against police brutality, we sympathize with your cause, and we appreciate that there have been judicial cases involving individuals legitimately worthy of your passions and support. This case may not be one of them.
This mistrial was no victory for any principled cause. Keeping neighborhoods safe for peaceful, law-abiding citizens requires broad respect for the law and for the entire judicial process, not just devotion to the single issue on one’s picket sign.
Robert A. Gelfand, M.D. (jury foreman)
Kelly Merly
For their role in keeping the 6-person jury from reaching any verdict on any of the 10 counts against Mr. Richardson, these two jurors were embraced and praised by activist groups rallying against police brutality. The outcome of mistrial was hailed as a vindication for their broader cause.
We, too, were on the jury in this case. We were astonished to learn that this is how the trial has been characterized in the public eye.
Mr. Richardson was on trial for a variety of charges, most involving motor-vehicle-related violations, such as driving while intoxicated and reckless driving. The trial was an effort to enforce the laws that forbid such behavior. These laws protect public safety. We believe no worthy cause or principle was served by the forcing of a mistrial.
For two weeks we sat through presentations of evidence from both the prosecution and defense. Day after day we concentrated on detailed testimony involving civilian and police eyewitnesses, written reports, maps, diagrams, audio and video recordings, photographic evidence, accident reconstructions, forensic experts, etc.
On retiring to deliberate, we found that not all jurors felt obliged to focus exclusively on this mass of evidence in determining the facts of the case. For some jurors, distrust of the police provided sufficient rationale to “vote their conscience” without further debate.
Our assignment was to determine Mr. Richardson’s guilt or innocence on each count. The possibility that he might be guilty on some counts and not guilty on others seemed the obvious starting point -- to most of us.
Most of the counts against Mr. Richardson required factual determinations about his own behavior, totally unrelated to the actions of the police. The questions of whether, for example, he was driving drunk or recklessly, or was involved in car collisions, did not require any consideration of what the police (or anyone else) did or did not do that night (or any other time).
We understand that strong emotions may overwhelm a person’s objectivity. Faced with a mountain of complicated, technical, sometimes contradictory evidence, coupled with instructions cross-referenced to heavy legalese, not all people can sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. Such people may be sincere and well intentioned. But they should not be jurors. Nor should anyone who cannot isolate themselves from influences originating outside the courtroom -- a fundamental obligation to which we all swore under oath.
For those picketing in protest against police brutality, we sympathize with your cause, and we appreciate that there have been judicial cases involving individuals legitimately worthy of your passions and support. This case may not be one of them.
This mistrial was no victory for any principled cause. Keeping neighborhoods safe for peaceful, law-abiding citizens requires broad respect for the law and for the entire judicial process, not just devotion to the single issue on one’s picket sign.
Robert A. Gelfand, M.D. (jury foreman)
Kelly Merly
posted by Matt DeRienzo at
5:34 PM
1 Comments:
Absolutely! Well said. Simply put, if the defendant did not flee the scene of the initial stop, the police would not have pursued, and if the defendant did not try to run over a police officer with his car when the pursuit ended, the police officer would not have shot him in self-defense. The defendant turned his car into a deadly weapon. Whether the police pursued legitimately or not does not negate the defendant's willingness to flee from a legal stop and then decidedly step on the gas pedal to use his vehicle as a deadly weapon against the officer...BUT call a mistrial because his sympathizers cannot execute our justice system fairly and without prejudice. They selfishly use our court system for propaganda for a cause that allows them to deflect the defendant's responsibility and negate his guilt. They have the nerve to accuse the police of brutality. The irony is rich. The defendant could have killed innocent people while driving intoxicated, recklessly, and then could have killed a law-abiding police officer by running him over with the same vehicle, but the police are the brutal betrayers of public safety in this scenario and this case worthy of a mistrial for this "poor victim" of police brutality? Whether the police should have pursued has no bearing on the defendant's guilt and indecency as a human being to drive drunk, ignore laws, compromise public safety, and then take no responsibility for his lawlessness. Blame the police and get our tax dollars in a lawsuit against them...what a world - this is freedom? Shame on those jurors who hide under the blanket of freedom and then exploit it for personal gain.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home