Jury Thoughts ......

I've always been a people watcher. Without an effort, I observe. It just happens. Sometimes I can almost sense the "story" of a person simply by watching them. When surrounded by large crowds, there are a few singular souls that will snatch my attention quickly.
I had an excellent opportunity to observe some fascinating individuals when I was called for jury duty.
I'm an odd cupcake. When others are cringing at the letter, feverishly trying to come up with a reason, any reason, why they should be excused from their civic duty, I actually get pretty excited about it. Other than the loss of income, should I be seated for a lengthy trial, or God forbid, I end up sequestered, being in the midst of the great minds and the austere, but so imposing atmosphere of the Halls of Jurisprudence stills my thoughts and lowers my head in reverence.
I'm not sure why I have always held the courts and our legal representatives in such awe. But I do.
I considered entering law school when I was soon to receive my first undergraduate degree. But I was so excited about getting married and starting that phase of my life that I only went as far as the interview. Many times since then I have revisited that decision. Not as any disrespect to my marriage or that facet of my life as a whole, but I now have serious doubts as to my ability to actually pull it off anymore in my lifetime.
A high school Social Studies teacher, whom I adored and who had a sense of humor bar none, suggested I become a lawyer all those years ago. He said my ability to argue, apparently with him although I don't recall it, made me tailor made for the profession :)
On my last call for jury duty, I had an eye opening experience.
Seated on the cold hard wooden bench in the cavernous courtroom, packed shoulder to shoulder with my fellow countians, I quietly looked around. And I listened.
I take no action in a courtroom lightly.
What I heard scared me to death.
As part of the jury selection process, the defendant has the right to be present for voir dire.
Before the defendant was brought into the courtroom, I listened as women around me fussed and fumed at having to be there. Many wanted to get back to work. One stated that her manager at Walmart was going to be "pissed" if this took too long or if she got picked.
Not a situation that made me feel hopeful for the sincerity of the process we were about to possibly enter. Or for the defendant.
The defendant was led into the courtroom in an orange jumpsuit.
At this point, no one in the jury pool has a clue as to his charges or the theories of the prosecution or defense.
And then I heard it.
"Well, look at that. He's black? He's guilty!" whispered one woman to my right to another beside her. That brought forth a low wave of chuckles down the line from anyone who could hear her muffled comment.
At that moment, without the benefit of paper and a pen, both not allowed, I desperately tried to commit to memory something about each person I heard laugh and especially of the woman who made the comment to begin with.
I intended to ask to speak with the judge immediately should any of those people be seated for the trial.
It made me sick.
And it made me realize that the defendant's being black was a variable.
That comment could have been made had the defendant been a woman with red hair. Or a man with a beard. Or a young female who may have looked "uppity" or snobbish.
Or a young man with tatoos.
The fate of the defendant was resting on the heads of the people in that jury pool. And several of them took it lightly enough to want to pass a verdict based on not one fact. Just skin color. So that they could hurry up and get back to their register at Walmart.
I kept my eye on them for the remainder of the voir dire.
I was seated as a juror. None of them were, thankfully.
I would like to think, pray actually, that had they been seated, their private self would have risen to the top and they would have helped hand down a verdict based solely on the evidence presented.
I know that the jury of which I was a member took it all deadly seriously.
Not sequestered, but we served for four days. And it got testy. And it bordered on ugly. But we did our duty and followed the rules.
We ignored the tear stained faces in the courtroom. We had to.
We focused on the video and audio tapes that were entered into evidence.
We had to.
We cast off all and any stereotypes of the defendant, the prosecutor and the defense team.
We cast off all stereotypes of fellow jurors.
It is one of the most intense situations a human can find themselves places in but it's the system we've got.
I'd like to think, pray, that Michael Roseboro will be afforded a jury who follows the rules to the letter.
For if he is deemed guilty or not guilty under any other circumstances, or by any other assessment under the guise of just and true evidence, none of us can expect any better treatment under the law should we ever find ourselves being judged by a jury of our peers.
We all need to begin praying for the potential jury pool now. We are that jury pool and we are the defendant. There's a part of us in every facet of this tragedy. And for that reason, we need to do all we can to make sure it is just and right.

Your right to refuse phone contact...according to the Pennsylvania Statute

ONE phone call in which all the words were 'neutral' (non-vulgar, non-threatening, etc) is not harassment. If it were, then I could claim that everyone who called me was harassing me.



Did you tell this person not to call you again?


PA Statute 5504. Harassment and stalking by communication or address.(a) Harassment by communication or address.--A person commits the crime of harassment by communication or address when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: 1. communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or abscene words, language, drawings or caricatures; or 2. communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner; 3. communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or 4. communicates repeatedly in a manner not covered by paragraph (2) or (3).(a.1) Stalking by communication or address.--A person commits the crime of stalking by communication or address when the person engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate either of the following: 1. An intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. 2. An intent to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person.

Sitting Back and Taking A Long, Hard Look At It All...

Since July of last year, many have been focused on the Roseboro case and the pending trial.
Forum posts and blog entries have gone through the roof. People on the street are still talking about it any and every chance they get.
It's been a source of sick entertainment for some, and for others it's just filled a void in their own lives. When the trial is history, they'll move on to the next hot topic.
In the midst of all the attention, posting and hoopla about this case, there has been an air of surreality to it all.
People meeting for lunch and toasting Mike Roseboro on his birthday.
A pool on the birth date of the new baby.
Some of it isn't just in poor taste, it's pathological.

But now, the baby has been born.
The trial is scheduled for July 17, 2009.
There is a sense of hard, cold reality that has landed on all of this.
Not until the trial will we know what the prosecution has in store. Only then will we learn what the defense claims are.
But right now, there is a baby and two little girls who need to adapt to the swirling changes in their lives.
There are children that are still without their mother and father.
Maybe it's the Mom in me but I believe that in the best interest of the Funk/Rudy children, they all need to be left alone. And that includes Angie.
Please do not mistake my words for any change in my opinions of her and her choices or actions.
I just am dumbfounded and sickened that anyone would call her while she was still in the hospital to talk to her about anything related to the case or her new baby.
I see that as a line that never should have been crossed.
There is nothing that needed to be said, no questions that needed to be asked that were important enough to violate her privacy while still in the hospital. That was just too much.
Like a pirhana feeding on fresh meat...that's all it is.
If being a journalist is all about disseminating true information to the masses and bringing issues to the light of day, aren't there ethics involved?
And even if there were no journalistic ethics, what of the ethics and morals of just being a person. Or of being a Mom?
Calling Angie Funk in that hospital was inexcusable.
I guess it's just a case of needing so badly to get the scoop, at all costs....

Ask her anything you like after she and that child have settled in and the girls have some time to adapt to yet another upheaval in their lives.
Use some good judgment and just try doing the right thing.
And if not, I'm sure Ms. Rothermel will do it for you.