TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:29 pm

abom2 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:15 am We no longer build walls around our cities and towns to exclude those that do not follow the communities laws, we build walled enclosures to confine them away from us.

This is an EXCELLENT point, and I had never considered it before. There is one small flaw in it though..... When we used to banish someone from inside the walls, they were free to move on and enter another walled city and victimize those people until they were banished again from that town. And on and on. We solved this problem by hanging them for being repeat offenders. I’m not suggesting that hanging is an appropriate response to purse-snatching, but it is entertaining to contemplate.

And could possibly align itself fairly close to punishments in certain regions of the world. Considering that this individual is a repeat offender. In some regions for the first theft he could have lost a hand. The drugs would have cost him his life. He had multiple drug convictions, most for manufacturing and distribution. Each of these could involve the sentence of death in the regions I am thinking of. Unsure of how these regions would handle Aggravated Assault and then the Aggravated Theft we convicted him of.

I feel multiple problems with this individual would have resulted in an extremely harsh and permanent solution. Plus less expensive.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:46 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:50 pm Likewise when I was called into voir dire for a DUI case, both prosecutor and defense attorney spent some time reading the law to us and asking if anyone would have trouble following it, basically. I would think a juror who answered yes at voir dire but no in the deliberations would be at some legal risk. If I were on the jury, especially as foreman, I would be tempted to report such juror to the judge. Sounds like the 11 of you did a good job of showing him or her a bit of common sense and integrity.


Question though: I cannot find a Penal Code citation for "aggravated" theft. There's levels of misdemeanor and felony theft based on the value of what was stolen, but I don't find the word "aggravated' in PC Chapter 31 Theft.

Can you explain a little more about the charges, what was stolen?

I see what you are saying, but seems like a very dangerous and slippery slope. During voir dire the prospective jurors are often being asked to speculate...”Would you be able to? Could you consider?” Ah yes, could, woulda, should, except when I saw your cruddy facts Mr Prosecutor and they triggered my SJW instincts. The integrity of the jury system would be seriously at risk if jurors could be punished for their decisions by holding that they were contrary to their answers during voir dire. Massive 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment issues at play here IMO.

When we met with the Judge, D.A., and Defense at the end of it all another juror specifically asked the Judge what would have happened if we had not come to a unanimous decision on the sentencing.

It was good to hear the Judge say that while a new jury would need to be seated and would be given all of the same evidence, they would only deliberate the sentencing only, the conviction would stand.

Looking at the faces of the other 9 jurors it appeared that we all had the fear of having to declare that we could not reach a decision and thus create a potential avenue of escape for this felon.

A little internal reflection in the shoulda coulda realm by me has brought a fairly strong thought that if SJW had the fortitude to continue with their efforts and resulted in our jury having to declare ourselves hung, the next jury would stand a better chance at not having the Joker in the deck and the Convicted Individual receiving closer to 50 years in prison. This is just a gut feeling.

My reasoning on this hope is as follows:

A new jury would hear and see everything we did. Eleven diverse people in our group allowed for a 50 year sentence in the first polling prior to any discussion except SJW's initial protest. Granted one of the eleven put their position at 38 to 50 yrs, the other 10 of us stated 50 yrs. It basically became our commitment to ensure this person received a sentence that would remove him from our society long enough for him never to have an effect on it or be a threat to it.

To us, his past felony convictions had proven that he had no desire to live within society's rules and with that should not have any of the advantages of living in that society. We no longer build walls around our cities and towns to exclude those that do not follow the communities laws, we build walled enclosures to confine them away from us.

So with that said, and with the information given by the Judge after everything was finished the facts are:

Convicted Felon will not be eligible for parole until the age of 72. If he ends up performing the whole sentence he will be 90 years old upon release.
While not the number of years a majority wanted, it should get the job done.

It is a bit disconcerting to me that several days after completing this I find myself irritated that we (the jury) had to perform this task. For me it was very unappealing and not a pleasant task at all. This because on person could not live within our laws and another felt themselves morally superior to the other 11.

rtschl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:31 am Reminds me of a murder case I was on over 20 years ago. We had one juror though not a SJW, was a young college student that was an emotional wreck. I was the jury foreman and had to walk through each of the possible charges starting backwards. She agreed that it wasn't involuntary or voluntary manslaughter. We found out after sentencing that the defendant testified against his attorney's advice. It was during the cross examination that he admitted he intended to kill the person, which was premeditated. So for this juror it was just that it was too hard emotionally for her to convict him. But with help from the rest of the jury, we did the same thing TAM talked about - that she said she could convict if the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt. She finally voted to convict. Sentencing was even harder. But this time a 2nd juror didn't want to give the maximum as the rest of us did. She kept stating "what if he changes, he deserves a chance". I said that is what clemency and pardons are for. Even though we know were aware of his previous 7 violent felonies she still didn't want to sentence him. I pleaded for a higher sentence as if he murdered or hurt someone again, it would be on our hands. We got a compromise of about half of what most of us wanted.

I asked the judge after the case what he would have sentenced him, and he said about 10 more years than we did so that he would be on parole the rest of his life, but that we are not allowed to know that as jurors. But not to worry. He was a felon in possession of firearm and he was going to be tried on federal charges next. That made me feel a little better.

After everything was completed and the Judge, D.A., and Defense Teams were in the Jury Room asking and answering questions revealed several things.

One of the other Juror's asked what type of sentence would she have given him, if he had not requested a Jury Trial and Sentencing. She would have probably around 30 yrs. The Judge was glad to have a gauge to go by now. The gauge was us. We were a good cross section of this area and we as a group told them how we arrived at 36 yrs. While we did not point out SJW, or the antics, it was clear to them that a majority wanted at least north of 40 or higher.

The Judge, D.A., and Defense all stated our input on how this sentence was arrived out helps them to gauge the communities actual desires for things like this. They were able to hear from our assembled group what our majority really wanted versus the individual "squeaky gear". I hope it does help them and possibly help guide them to assign stiffer sentences.

Our group told the D.A. that his request to us of 50 yrs was not unreasonable to 11 of us. His expression was priceless, even the Defense told us he had advised him to take the Plea Deal offered. The Defense Lawyer did his job all the way through, he did advise his client, he did his best to get his client the minimums, but talking with him and the others one senses there is even more in this guys past that we were not told.

SJW will never change. This person is self absorbed and convinced that their education is superior to the group. Claimed multiple degrees. I did approach SJW at the end and shook their hand, smiled, and let them know that between the two of us, I know we would always butt heads. Then informed them not to get too wrapped up in ones self and their better education. Pointed out my EE, NDMTE, courses at the American War College, DIA, combined with the never completed degree track at the University of Hard Knocks.

I do want to apologize in advance to all. My is good, but, I do not remember every detail of the Directions and Charges as provided to our Jury. These covered four pages. The requirements for the charges, the definitions, etc. I relied very heavy on this document and read it myself several times and then read the pertinent areas aloud to the others, to keep ourselves focused and our task cleared.

We made sure each person did also personally read these documents themselves at least once or if they had a question. I did not want them to trust the way that I read the document.

ELB wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:50 pm Likewise when I was called into voir dire for a DUI case, both prosecutor and defense attorney spent some time reading the law to us and asking if anyone would have trouble following it, basically. I would think a juror who answered yes at voir dire but no in the deliberations would be at some legal risk. If I were on the jury, especially as foreman, I would be tempted to report such juror to the judge. Sounds like the 11 of you did a good job of showing him or her a bit of common sense and integrity.


Question though: I cannot find a Penal Code citation for "aggravated" theft. There's levels of misdemeanor and felony theft based on the value of what was stolen, but I don't find the word "aggravated' in PC Chapter 31 Theft.

Can you explain a little more about the charges, what was stolen?

What was stolen was a purse containing $300.00 dollars and an ID.

What made this aggravated per our instructions, was the victim was over 65 yrs of age, denied the use of property or devices (money), and was injured. Basically, victim was 92 yrs old. Went to bank with Care Giver, Felon came into bank, chose his victim by all who was at the tellers, exited bank, waited under tree at edge of parking lot. When the Care Giver and Victim exited the bank and headed towards their car he came across the parking lot, closed the distance at their rear, and while Care Giver was unlocking passenger door, he moved in, snatched the purse, causing victim to lose purchase of cane being used to walk. She fell and broke her hip.

She was 92 and could walk easily enough with a cane. Care Giver only provided some house cleaning, change sheets, cook a meal, and take to store and bank. Victim was able to be mostly interdependent prior to this. Care Giver had taken care of her for 10 yrs prior to this day. Could not continue after that due to not having the required additional skills, certs, etc. needed to care for the victim now.

Anyway, additional instructions for this dealt with the State proving the Felon not only did attack/perform theft of someone over 65 or disabled, but that he was either Intentionally, Unintentionally, or Recklessly cause PAIN and/or Injury in the performance of this crime. I will tell you this despite his justifications and protests this individual did cause injury to the victim. If he had not grabbed her purse, causing her to lose her cane, she would not have fallen and broken her hip. The State did as promised and did show how he did cause this due to being Reckless.

His confession and his testimony to us was filled with his attempts to justify his actions. He blamed society, the Care Giver, his lack of education, claimed Schizophrenia. Stated he needed money for his momma and he would do anything for his momma.

This guy has spent 20 of the previous 27 years in prison. He gets at least 18 more years without any breaks this time.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:19 pm And, as per usual, SJW proved to be detached from reality, and unconcerned about the accused being a predator. Maybe it will take an encounter with such a predator to change his/her mind.

Something else.... based on the kind of questions I was asked both times I’ve been through voir dire, it seems that SJW did not answer all of the questions truthfully. BOTH times for me, the sentencing range for the charge being tried was explained by the prosecutor during voir dire, and the potential jurors were each asked if they would have difficulty reaching a guilty verdict given those guidelines. Didn't either the prosecutor or defense ask this during your voir dire? If so, then either SJW is a liar, or the prosecutor is incompetent.

Yes, that is correct that those questions were asked during the voir dire. Additionally, the first question asked was based upon how great our country is with its form of judicial system. The judge asked what one of the attributes were. I raised my hand and stated the right to face ones accusers.
Wow, what a stream that set off with the Prosecutor and the Defense. Seems the State would not be bringing in the victim. So the next logical question was "Would one have a problem if the victim did not testify?" The way the State charged him, etc. the Judge explained in the State could bring the charges, etc. and the victim would not be physically present.

SJW also claimed superior education with degrees in Eng., Petrochem, Law. Story line did not add up. SJW did become more obstinate when the Alternate was released.

We did find out that once we convicted the charged individual and if SJW had persevered in a Mistrial for the Sentencing a new Jury would have been seated. They would hear all of the evidence we did and would only debate/assign the sentence. So our fear of this felon getting off completely was unfounded.

Yesterday I finished my first time as a Juror on a Criminal Case. (Other time was a Civil Matter)

Without going into the blow by blow the most difficult two things was ensuring that we as a group were unanimous in our Conviction and Sentencing.

One would think that a video recorded confession, video of the crime, video of the criminal scouting the victim, clear definitions of what the charge was etc. would make this simple.

DA proved without doubt that the convicted did "recklessly" commit Aggravated Theft. But the wild card was in the deck. One individual on our jury was what one could describe as a "Social Justice Warrior". It is ironic that we were a very diverse group, all were friendly, warm, and caring individuals except one. Still the one was not unpleasant. Just seemed to be completely unreasonable. Stated they felt the videos had been altered, defendant was being railroaded by "The Man". Felt like the person had been watching too much TV or extreme views programs.

Never the less, no anger, no name calling, no negative singling out. Encouraged the one that did not want to convict at all to review ALL of the evidence, read the jury charge with definitions repeatedly, and then reviewed all video of crime and the confession with the individual.

We as a Jury, found the individual guilty as charged by the State.

During Sentencing our SJW stated that the Enhanced Sentencing Guidelines we were charged with following were excessive. Individual stated that they could not even consider the minimum. Range was 25 to 99 years. Honestly, 99 years was my personal starting point and I soul searched and reviewed the evidence and the facts. I personally felt, if I voted for anything greater than 50 yrs, it would be futile, counterproductive, and in the realities of this case over done.

I will state this again, just as I did with my fellow jurors. "I did not want this person in our society. His actions throughout life has shown no regard for the communal laws of functional society." We found out during the Sentencing Phase that he was subject to Enhanced Sentencing Guidelines due to past convictions. Individual had six prior felony convictions. After the trial, meeting with the DA, Judge, and Defense their statements confirmed that this individual had other convictions that were not Felonies.

This whole Criminal Jury Trial Story is good for two very large pots of good coffee. I hate that I lost a full week of wages and it will cause some strain to our budget. I do not understand how I was picked. If I was the Defense, I would not want me on the Jury. I am very by the book.

Anyway, In the initial start of our sentencing phase determination- 11 jurors revealed their initial thoughts as this- 10 wanted 50 years, one wanted a minimum of 38 years, and SJW said none of the options were viable to them.

Review of all evidence, the Jury Charge for Sentencing guides, and a reminder of our unanimous conviction finding brought SJW to the table for discussions. So now we, as a group are at one for 25 yrs and 11 others for double that. The previous felony convictions were listed on a packet of papers, I took this and listed each in calendar order on the white board. They were not in calendar order in the packet.

Once listed by date of conviction, what the conviction was, and sentence was listed it was quite clear to all members. This individual is a predator.

So to finish quickly here. We were able to all agree on 36 years in prison. He will not be eligible for consideration of parole until he is 72 yrs old.

It was not my 50 yrs, but myself and 10 others felt that we have done our part to ensure he will not be part of our society. He showed no changes for conforming to societal rules or laws in his life. He chose not to live within our laws and rules, exclusion was the last option.

To the 10 other jurors in my group I am happy to have served with ya'll and we did come together as a group.