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.

Final Accountability: The Long Road To Justice

A date has now been set for The State of Pennsylvania vs. Michael A. Roseboro. On July 17, 2009 the long and tedious work will begin. The initial "housekeeping" and setting the stage will begin. When all of the "business" of the trial is completed, the testimony will begin.

Voir dire will be interesting to say the least. We can all only hope and pray that the jurors will be representative of the citizens of the county and rely only on facts in evidence. I know many people that have remained focused on this case since the first report of Jan Roseboro's death was made public are still claiming to be able to put all personal theories and feelings aside.
As heinous as the crime was, and as much as the loss of a beautiful Mom of four young children breaks my heart, even I could review the evidence at hand and render a vote to verdict based solely on that. Any other option would terrify me. And it should terrify you.
No matter the previous interactions anyone has had with any of the parties involved, Michael Roseboro is supposed to receive a verdict handed down by a jury of his peers after and only after the evidence is reviewed.
The Roseboro jury has a very painful and heartbreaking duty ahead of them. No matter the final verdict, no one will ever come out a winner. There are no fixes here.
I believe that being a juror in this trial will change the lives of those chosen.
Mr. Sodomsky has a long and successful history to bring to the table. His client deserves the best he's got. Sodomsky is skilled and eloquent, knowing that the jury has to accept him before they will listen to him.
DA Steadman has his battle ahead. He bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He represents every citizen of the State of Pennsylvania when he rises to stand at the lectern.
The murder of Jan Roseboro was a crime of murder to her person, and it was a crime against the State of Pennsylvania, and thus, to the society of Pennsylvania.

The time for conjecture and speculation is about to end. Evidence will be presented that hasn't seen the light of day yet. Defense maneuvers that we could only imagine will take on a vivid and colorful life of their own.
This will be a battle.
Mr. Sodomsky bears not ounce of burden in this case or any case in which he defends. He, in all reality, has to do nothing. He could, in a perfect world, never rise from his chair, never enter one item as evidence. He could let the ball in the State's court.
That rarely happens, although there have been cases where the defense is so absent that it might as well as be deemed not presented.
In this case, Mr. Sodomsky simply has to confuse, create wonder and doubt. And that may not be a difficult thing to do.
Mr. Steadman has to convince twelve people of facts and a chain of events beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't "have a good feeling" Mike did it. They can't "bet a dollar to a dougnut" he did it. They have to be sure enough that there is no other answer as to who killed Jan Roseboro.
We can all be grateful for that caveat. Not all countries operate the way we do in the United States.
Now don't get me wrong. I watched every minute of the OJ trial that they televised. And the verdict that resulted sucked the air out of my chest. That still terrifies me. The scientific evidence in that case was over the heads of those jurors. That is clear. And the State of California dropped the ball. They needed to educate that jury in a much more effective way. And they never should have allowed OJ's team to orchestrate the trying on of the gloves. But I doubt today that even if the gloves would have fit, that they would have convicted him. There was far too much going on behind the scenes to get an honest result based solely on evidence. The woman who saw OJ racing away from the area of the murder at the appropriate time, had he been the killer, blew it. She sold her story to a tabloid and her testimony wasn't admitted.
She saw him. Period.
Let's hope there are no missteps in the Roseboro trial. For either side.
There is a time lag between Jan being taken to ECH and the authorities returning to the scene for evidentiary work. Only when the autopsy was done did they return to the scene. There were many hours available for extra clean up and disposal of evidence. I hope that doesn't come back to haunt the State.
Mr. Steadman has a target. Mike Roseboro.
Mr. Sodomsky doesn't need one, but he has several if not more. He has everyone.
The defense doesn't have to prove who did it. They just have to show that everyone and anyone else could have killed Jan. From a mistress of Mike's to a random thug intent on robbing, the candidates only need to muddy up the waters.

Testimony may be given that will reveal parts of lives never before known. Many had no idea that when they had a very temporary fling with Mike or Angie that they would be facing a bailiff or a clerk of the court with their hand on the Bible. It has to seem macabre or surreal to them at the very least.
The combination of Michael Roseboro and Angela Funk was lethal and toxic. And the damage and devastation will go on for years and years. Lives not yet begun will be affected forever. Lives that are so young will never be complete.
A guilty verdict will repair nothing. An acquittal might allow the Roseboro and Binkley families a chance to heal and try to get through the days of their lives with some comfort. The damage done to families throughout the county will remain.
But a true and honest verdict is what our system is all about.
Unless a person steps forward who witnessed what happened at the Roseboro home that night, we have to rely on the jury to sift through it all and make the right decision.
No one wants to see Roseboro get away with murder. And no one wants to see him convicted of a crime he may not have committed. The loss has been so great already.
And at the center of it stands Angela Funk. Due any day now.
I can't imagine being that child, years down the road, trying to make sense of the events that led to my life. People often feel that they carry the stain of their parents or families. That poor baby has been given the worst possible burden to carry. And that burden was given freely by it's mother.
Given the fact that Funk has never made an attempt to "lay low" or avoid public scrutiny thus far, I can't see her stepping off the stage she's created in her own mind anytime soon. Just as she blazed proud all over town in her pregnant glory, she will probably parade that poor baby all over the area as well. She did nothing to shield her daughter's from the glare. And this child will be no different. This child is her badge of fame. After all, why don't we just understand?
Mike loves her, he wants to be with her and have a family with her! Just ask Angie, she'll tell you!
He loves her? He wants to be with her? So he said.... now we'll see what he has to say.....now that he's had a chance to see his life as it really is.
If acquitted in the courts, he will never recoup what he's lost as a man and a father. Let's see if Angie is worth all that come trial time.
My guess is that Mike is shoving her under the bus. After all, it was well known that he was seeing other women while he was sleeping with Angie.
There was a woman that he was known to meet right in Reinholds, near the railroad tracks. There was at least one other woman Mike was seeing so often that when the story broke, men and women who knew Mike had mistakenly guessed that it was one of those women that the authorities were referring to when the news broke.
Let's see if they show up at the trial to testify. I hope Angie gets to meet her sisters-in-love.
The other members of Mike's "stable". She just may learn that she wasn't that special after all.
Or was that why she orchestrated the pregnancy behind Mike's back? Did she know? And sealed her spot with an "oopsie"?
Stay tuned...

Are You Paying Attention?

It was reported this morning that in Philadelphia, a juror currently seated in the Fumo trial Twittered about it and apparently made a post on his or her Facebook account. The article, from the MyFoxPhilly website appears below.
Also, below is a repost of a blog entry I made on the If You Want To Know The Truth blog here on Blogger.com.
In that post I told you all that a poster on a small town community forum shared with all that she had received information about the Roseboro defense through an individual claiming to have been given that information directly by an aide who works for Mike Roseboro's defense attorney, Allan Sodomsky. The impropriety of that chain of gossip got the attention of many who read the forum and I know that Mr. Sodomsky's firm was notified. What his plan is for dealing with that is unknown at this time, but it could be something, among other things, that he sticks in his pocket to use as ammo to file for a mistrial. We'll have to wait and see.
That aide losing her job would be the least of the fallout from that information being posted. Think people! If you aren't sure what you're going to share is appropriate, ask someone or check it out. Op Ed and opinion posts are one thing, but when you claim to have facts and you post them and your source, it becomes a matter of public record.
Here is the Sodomsky post followed by the Fumo story from Fox News....

Mr. Sodomsky's office......

Mr. Allan Sodomsky's office received a complaint via email about the possibility of one of his staff discussing the Michael Roseboro murder case. What information was shared wasn't clear but it didn't seem to be of extraordinary importance.
The State of Pennsylvania statues regarding lawyer-client confidentiality extend to paralegals, secretaries, receptionists, scopists, transcriptionists and other ancillary staff.
In the event of a breach of the statute, the employee can suffer as little as a reprimand or as much as a civil suit being filed against them.
The complaint resulted from a post on a public forum by a party who claimed to have heard information third hand, with the original reporter being the employee of the law firm.
Whether the employee in question actually violated the confidentialty of the firm is unknown at this time. All that is known is that the poster claimed, publicly, that she was given the information by a party who was personally known to the law firm employee.
It might have been a wiser thing for the forum poster to not share what she had been told. Most people would recognize that repeating any information related to a defendant in a murder trial, from an aide of the defense attorney might cause a problem for that employee, the defendant or the firm itself.

Fumo: Motion Filed For
Possible Mistrial

Juror Discussed Case On Facebook,
Twitter

PHILADELPHIA - Defense lawyers, in the corruption trial of ex-Pennsylvania Senator Vince Fumo, are calling for an immediate halt in jury deliberations.

Sunday, the defense filed a motion after learning a juror was posting comments about deliberations on Facebook and Twitter.

Fox 29's Steve Keeley reports, the defense wants U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter to replace one or more jurors or consider declaring a mistrial.

The defense motion cites a Facebook post late Friday that allegedly tells friends to expect a "big announcement" on Monday and a Twitter message that same day stating "This is it ... no looking
back now!"

Fumo, a long-powerful Philadelphia Democrat, is charged with defrauding the Senate, a charity and a museum of $3.5 million, and with destroying evidence.

The juror has not been identified.

The trial has been underway for five-months.