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.

Funny How My Mind Works.......

I've been wondering about Angie Funk's desire to not have blood taken as requested by the State to determine paternity of her unborn child.
Clearly, Angie has made her feelings for Mike Roseboro known and has never changed her stance of wanting a life with him. She told the authorities that she is pregnant with the Roseboro baby.
Then why would her attorney try to block the very test that will eventually reveal the results that Angie already has claimed to be fact, and results that will seal her connection to Mike Roseboro for the rest of their lives?
Even with the final DNA testing being done after the delivery, it's not like Angie to NOT want to rush headlong into any tether to her lover.
Why wouldn't she immediately want to submit to the serology to get this plan on the road?
I am wondering about that right now.
I have no idea if Angie has submitted any forensic evidence to the police, investigators or DA's office. I have no idea how much attention they have paid to her and her involvement in the events that led to Jan Roseboro's murder.
It seems from all that we've read and heard, that Angie hasn't been in the running as a suspect.
Now I wonder....by not giving up a blood sample that could yield her DNA profile, is she trying to make sure she stays out of the suspect line up?
This is pure speculation, but what if there has been no quantifiable forensic evidence tagged with Angie's ID up to this point. Steadman is after a win. And even if she is a probable suspect, they would never get an indictment unless all involved can see this clearly earning a conviction in the end.
So far, Angie hasn't been mentioned by the DA as a suspect. In fact, he stated that they anticipated no further arrests.
I first questioned if Angie Funk was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony. The trial will reveal that.
But if she hasn't been scrutinized deeply only because the DA feels Mike is the only suspect, what if there are a few unidentified forensic details that they haven't pursued?
If they haven't tested Angie up to this point and she was at the Roseboro home, that blood test could put a hitch in her gitalong.
It may the first concrete forensic comparison sample they have had, of Angie's, to this point.
And that may be why Sodomsky needed just a little more time and asked for the continuance.
To win his client's freedom, Sodomsky has to create doubt. One tactic is to make the jury wonder if someone else did in fact commit the crime. And a good defense attorney will throw anyone in the jury's path to secure an acquittal for his client.

Taking blood out of her arm in no way posed a threat to her unborn baby. So why would Angie Funk NOT want her blood sample taken? Or not taken until after the birth of the baby?
Is it even possible that Mike did find Jan at the bottom of the pool the way he claimed, and that Angie's DNA was at the scene?
I am speculating that one possible scenario is that Angie took care of Jan. Mike found Jan in the pool and didn't know Angie had anything to do with it. But if she left some DNA behind and her blood test is performed, she could be identified by it.
If she would be identified as being at the Roseboro home and they took it a step further and claimed that Angie could have been directly involved in the murder, would Mike be more forgiving of Angie if he pictures her holding their newborn baby?
How could Mike look at the face of his newborn and hate the child's mother? No matter what he may have learned?
Just an idea. I have no facts to back that up.
But ask yourself the same question.
Why would Angie Funk NOT want her blood sample taken? And not want it enough to have her attorney attempt to block it in court?
Remember what we've all heard others tell us about what Angie thinks of Mike's guilt...
She keeps saying she "knows" he couldn't have done it. Hmmm...maybe that's because she knows who DID.