TRIAL AND TRIBULATION

I've been watching a trial in which a thirty-something male is being charged with two counts of first degree murder. In brief, he was living with victim 1 and doing victim 2. One late night, he was driving with victim 1 in the passenger seat and victim 2 in back. Victims 1 and 2 began to argue. Defendant lost his mind, which is totally understandable. I mean, how would you react if it were dark out and you were trying to concentrate on the highway under the influence of alcohol and crack cocaine while your bee-aches were screaming back and forth at each other? So, he pulled out a gun and shot both of them in the head and face multiple times. He then drove into the nearest suburb and dumped victim 1 out onto the street like garbage. Victim 2 was found in a ditch near a major Detroit intersection. He's now severely depressed because he loves victim 1 and misses her. He apologizes to her family, all of whom are sitting in the court room wearing t-shirts of the victim's face that have been turned inside out, upon the judge's instruction, so the jury won't be prejudiced.

Despite everything, he pled not guilty. His lawyer argues that things are not as they seem, and more people are involved. A problem lies herein...

Have you ever heard Jay Leno yell out to his sidekick/guitarist Kevin Eubanks; "Hey Kev, what do I love more than anything in the world?" Kevin always answers, "Stupid criminals."

I can kind of see why. This guy pulled all the textbook stupid criminal tricks. He called up an unknowing friend the next morning to drive him back from a glass shop where he was getting a shattered passenger seat window fixed. He asked the friend to pay for the damage, caused by a car break-in, because he forgot his id at home and couldn't use his credit card. He then spent the rest of the day hanging out with the guy, hoping he'd be an alibi witness. Then he scrubbed out his car with some type of bleach cleaner, but overlooked two black spots on the seat belt.

Unexpectedly, the jury selection for this case was more controversial than the arguments themselves. The defendant is African American, and before trial commenced, in walked 42 potential jurors, 14 of whom were to be picked, and 2 of whom were African American. Almost immediately, the defense attorney requested that they be sequestered (isolated). He then argued potential prejudice but lost on the grounds that there was no plan or scheme in choosing the jurors.

Each juror is asked the same round of questions: What do you do?; Where do you work?; Are you married?; What does your wife/husband do?; What is your highest level of education?; Have you or anyone you know been convicted of a crime?; Have you been the victim of a crime?; Can you be fair and impartial?”

One man answered the last question by saying: "No. I hate blacks." He was probably trying to get out of jury duty, but according to the bailiff, the judge has zero tolerance for racism. Instead of excusing the imperial wizard, he ordered him to sit in the audience and wait. And believe me, he sat for a loooooooong time, as in 3 hours. If I were judge, I would've held him in contempt by locking him up for a while.

Another girl, whose life you'd imagine to be almost perfect by her striking beauty and the way she walked, talked, and dressed, shocked me with her last few responses.

Judge: Have you or has anyone you know been convicted of a crime?

Girl: Yes. My brother.

Judge: What was he convicted of?

Girl: Rape.

Judge: Will you use his conviction as a bias in the case against the defendant?

Girl: No.

Judge: Have you or has anyone you know been a victim of a crime?

Girl: Yes

Judge: Would you please explain?

Girl: Yes. My brother raped me.

Not everything is what it seems. Maybe the defense attorney will prove his point after all, (but I highly doubt it).