This Monday I was summoned to the Lehigh County Courthouse to serve as a juror for the first time. Based on the experiences of other people who have served in other jurisdictions, I expected to most likely sit in a room and read for three days. Armed with newspapers from the previous three days, two issues of AI Magazine, and a recent Reader’s Digest, I was prepared for a day of general unproductivity. There were about 70 of us summoned at the unholy hour of 8:30 am, but we did not start until after 9:00. The court official in charge of jurors gave us some instruction and information about the process and what to expect, and then we watched a truly horrid video in which an actor dressed as a sheriff explained the process with awful jokes and a thick New York accent. It was like being forced to watch an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond.
Approximately half of the potential jurors was randomly selected for a civil case that was starting that morning, and those of us remaining were seated for the jury selection process for a criminal case. I was potential juror number 2, meaning that I would certainly be put on the case unless either counsel found something dangerous about me. At this time I looked around and noticed that this sample of 35 Lehigh County residents included 35 Caucasians, including only a few who looked like they might identify themselves as Hispanic. Given that the 2000 census found that 87% of residents were white, the probability of such a sample being drawn randomly is less than 1%. Interesting.
Chief Deputy DA David Ritter started the jury selection process with Allentown police officer Michael Popovitch, defense counsel Kurt Geishauser, and the defendant Jason Marcelle, but no judge. (I intended to change the names to protect the innocent, but that seems unnecessary since the media reported the story.) Attorney Ritter explained that the case involved an alleged assault that took place on September 25, 2007 (so much for a speedy trial) and asked if any of us knew personally the victim, defendant, attorneys, judge, witnesses, or anyone else involved in the case, and if we had any prior knowledge of it. He also asked many questions about our ability to be impartial, the necessity of holding the statements of police officers to exactly the same standards as anyone else, our understanding and acceptance that the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, our willingness to engage in jury nullification, etc. Interestingly, he stressed very strongly here that we could not grant a police officer any trust because of his position, but in his closing statement asked us to do precisely that.
Several people responded that they would have a problem with one or another of these questions, mostly that they held either an inherent trust or distrust for police officers that they would be unable to set aside. I had no responses, although I considered mentioning that if the charges were a “victimless” crime or other charge that I believe should not be illegal, I would be strongly tempted to vote not guilty in spite of evidence to the contrary. Because this case related to the very victim-ful charge of simple assault, it did not seem relevant. Attorney Geishauser then asked a single follow-up question, and the attorneys took a half hour or so to strike potential jurors that they felt would not be fair to their side. This included the first potential but not me, so I became juror number 1.
By this time it was approaching noon, so the court officers took us to the jury room in the old courthouse and dismissed us for lunch until 1:15. I visited the Pizza Mart just down Hamilton and enjoyed a delicious stromboli, then did some reading in a park behind the old courthouse.
At 1:15 we were lead into the courtroom, which was quite large and ornate. President Judge Platt read a long exhortation and instructions to us from a binder, while the court stenographer strangely recorded all of it. Attorney Ritter gave his opening statement, explaining that the case would be straightforward and summarizing the testimony that he expected us to hear. Attorney Geishauser began his opening statement by asserting that his client could not have committed the crime, having had both of his legs broken in an accident on May 30, 2007 in which two police vehicles collided. I would imagine that all of us immediately recognized that as being the same accident that killed Daviay Legrand (not the original story, but the best I could find). However, the cause of Jason’s injuries was ruled irrelevant. It should be noted that Jason Marcelle was sitting in a wheelchair throughout the jury selection and proceedings.
The first witness was the victim, Hilton Baez. As he was being sworn in, Attorney Geishauser made a motion for sequestration, Attorney Ritter agreed, and Judge Platt ordered it. As I was processing the thought that I might not be able to go home at the end of the evening, I realized they were referring not to sequestering the jury, but removing all witnesses from the courtroom when they were not giving their testimony. This turned out to be a fairly shrewd move for the defense. Hilton was a very shy, effeminate 16 year old boy. He had much difficulty giving his testimony, I suspect out of fear of his attacker. He told the following story:
On September 25th he was walking home from school on Allen Street with his best friend Anisah, while his friend Jessica Marcelle and another girl named Mercedes were walking on the other side of the street. There was an exchange of words in which Hilton thought he heard Jessica use a slur about his sexual orientation. He told her to shut up, and she crossed the street to confront him. Jessica informed Hilton that it had been Mercedes that used the slur, and Hilton apologized. Then Jessica pushed him, he pushed her back, and they began fighting. The Mercedes joined the fight and eventually Anisah separated them. No one was injured, and the two groups went their separate ways.
After spending about a half hour at Anisah’s home, Hilton and Anisah decided to go to a Jamaican grocery store to get something to eat. On the way there they passed the Marcelle home, where Jason Marcelle was standing outside. He asked Hilton to come speak to him, and Anisah encouraged him to do so. Hilton crossed the street to Jason and Jason asked if Hilton had hit his sister Jessica. Hilton responded that he had, but only after Jessica had hit him. Jason responded that this was no excuse for hitting a girl and punched Hilton, causing him to fall back onto a car. Jason then held Hilton’s hair in one hand and with the other uppercutted him 10 or 12 more times in the face, then got in a car. Jessica had been standing behind Jason. Hilton attempted to fight back but ineffectively.
Hilton and Anisah had some other friends in the area who came out and attended to Hilton’s wounds with napkins, ice, and pieces of frozen meat to stop it from swelling. They called the police and then gave statements when they arrived. They then went to Sacred Heart hospital to have his wounds treated properly. Photographs were taken there and shown to us of a badly injured face. Both Hilton and Anisah gave written statements at the hospital. His wounds swelled to the point that he was unable to see out of his left eye and he missed two weeks of school.
The next witness was Anisah, who had a similar but interestingly different story. Only the discrepancies are listed below:
During the initial confrontation there had been a third person with Jessica and Mercedes. When Hilton and Anisah went to the Jamaican grocery store a third friend named Shamika went with them. When they passed by the Marcelle residence no one was outside, and Shamika went up to the house and rang the doorbell, at which point Jason came to answer it. Hilton landed a punch after the first one he received, causing Jason to ask “you gonna hit me?” and continue the assault.
The third prosecution witness was officer Popovitch, who told us what he knew.
Officer Popovitch responded to a report of a fight and found people treating Hilton and a lot of anger. He was told that Jason Marcelle was the other participant in the fight, so he called for backup and went to the Marcelle residence to interview him. Jessica answered the door and told him that Jason was not home and had not been home. She was quite belligerent, but gave him permission to search the house to prove that Jason was not there. He did not find Jason, but did see an empty wheelchair.
He went to the hospital with Hilton and Anisah, where he took their formal statements. His medical records indicated a fractured cheekbone in addition to various cuts and abrasions. Neither Hilton nor Anisah mentioned anything about a Jamaican grocery store in their statements, but said that they had been going to talk to Jessica.
He returned to the Marcelle residence two days later to arrest Jason, whom he found sitting on a couch. Because Jason said he could not walk, he was transported to the police station by EMS.
The prosecution then rested, and the defense called its only witness, Jessica Marcelle. She gave the following account of what happened that day:
There were many people around during the incident earlier in the day, and it was several bystanders who broke up the fight. Later in the day she opened the door when Shamika rang the doorbell and Hilton, Anisah, and three of four of Hilton’s other friends were outside her house. She and Hilton got in a second fight, during which she hit him three or four more times wherever she could land a blow. Then she went back insider her house. When officer Popovitch came to the door she told him that she was the one who had been fighting with Hilton, and that she had not seen her brother since she left for school in the morning. Officer Popovitch did not enter her house at any time that day.
The entirety of the judge’s instructions, attorneys’ opening statements, and witnesses’ testimony lasted two hours. We were then given a 15 minute break before we returned to hear the the attorney’s closing statements and then a very long charge that the judge again read from a book.
When we started deliberations, 8 of us thought that there was a good chance Jason Marcelle had been involved in the assault, but that it had not been proven, while there were 4 jurors who were ready to vote “guilty”. Interestingly, of the four female jurors, three of them were in the guilty camp. After a half an hour of deliberations we had convinced three of the jurors who had initially wanted “guilty” to agree that there was reasonable doubt all over the case. The remaining juror required nearly another hour and a half, and was still not really convinced. At 6:00 a court official came to ask if he should order us dinner, and at that time she essentially gave up although she still disagreed with the rest of us. I am not sure whether she had a fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase “reasonable doubt”, simply refused to abide by it, or was not a reasonable person. Although she seemed very nice and reasonable otherwise, my guess is the last of these. As we went over again and again the various holes in the case she continued to insist “I just think he did it.” When pressed for supporting evidence, she said “What they [the witnesses] said and the way they said it made me know he did it.”
We then waited until about 6:15 for everyone else to reassemble in the courtroom before we could give our verdict of “Not Guilty”, or really “Probably Guilty But Not Proven Guilty”. Frankly, I cannot understand how the district attorney’s office believed that this was a winnable case with the evidence that they presented. Attorney Ritter seemed quite competent, so I must suspect that he knew the case was weak but was pressured by the family to press charges. All of us agreed that Hilton Baez had been assaulted and wanted to give him justice, but there was nothing approaching proof that Jason was guilty.
None of us really believed that Jason was unable to walk, and his sister’s testimony was not credible. In particular, it strains the capacity for belief to think that the police officer would have lied to us about entering the house. (It is, however, at least possible that he did so to lay a foundation for a defense against Jason’s lawsuit against the city for the accident that injured him.) Overall I think her testimony hurt the defense, but I suppose they at least needed someone to say that he was not there.
Unfortunately for the prosecutor, his witnesses were not particularly credible either. The only people who testified about the event were the victim and his best friend. Although I cannot imagine what motive they would have for lying about who committed the assault, they could easily have done so. It is obvious that Hilton was lying (or more charitably mis-remembering) how the second encounter started, and I am fairly sure the Jamaican store was a fabrication of both of them. If they were willing to lie about these things, it seems less of a stretch that they would lie about who was involved. The police officer was credible, but none of his testimony could actually tell us who was involved, as he was only there after the event and had no physical evidence.
At the end of the case there were still many questions left unanswered. Why did Shamika not testify for either side? What about the people who either came out to treat Hilton (according to the prosecution) or came with Hilton for a rumble (according to the defense)? What about any witnesses that had no stake in the matter? I am unfamiliar with Allentown geography, but several other jurors insisted that at that time and location there would have been many people in the streets. If Jason Marcelle was capable of walking, why could they not bring a single person other than the victim and his best friend who saw him doing so at any time over the last 15 months?
After my experience with the lone dissenter, I am starting to see the point of a friend of mine who thinks we should have professional jurors. An understanding of the finer points of law is not essential for the finder of facts, but understanding and agreeing to your basic duty is rather important. If she had been able to keep even one other person on her side, I might still be there unable to change her intuition.
Overall jury duty was not a terrible experience. It inconvenienced me for only one day and, while deliberations were frustrating, an inside view of the legal system was quite interesting.