Chapter 3 - Is it the defendant or me on trial here?

“I am Santa Claus…I am also writing a couple of middle school Christmas books…the first one is about a family that loses their family Santa in a climbing accident and also the father is in an Everest accident. To help their father recover at the end of the book they go on a climbing rebirth to the Sasquatch hot springs here on Mount Rainier.”

Juror #115 (a.k.a. – Santa Claus)

 

After getting a hold of some court transcripts after the conclusion of the Nelson trial, I was able to see that this is what Juror 115 told the court in his individual questioning. Having experienced him over several days, that odd statement he gave the court certainly comports.

I had met Juror 115 a few weeks earlier when we were in court for the first time. As I started to discuss in the last chapter, I had been sitting at the same table as him in the large jury assembly room, and he was VERY friendly. He struck up a conversation with me and a few others. At first, it was enjoyable to chat with him. However, what began as a pleasant conversation quickly turned into a realization that I was trapped in a vortex of nonstop talking. He filibustered on subjects that were undoubtedly fascinating to him but not interesting to anyone else in the room. He droned on and on about being a professional Santa and went into comprehensive detail about the competition between him and other Santa's fighting for gigs around Christmas. We heard all about his family and his son, who won’t speak to him. He described all the ways his son was rotten and misguided. We also heard about the loss of his wife and their tumultuous marriage. It was A LOT, and he just kept talking about himself. Any attempt by others to get a word in edgewise was quickly overtaken by more about him. That day back in April, I think I was trapped in his barrage of talking for about an hour. After lunch, I sat far away from him to preserve my sanity.

When I arrived back at court on May 6th, you can imagine my chagrin at finding myself in a room with eight other people waiting to be individually questioned, one of whom was Santa. Upon seeing him when I arrived in the large juror assembly room, I made sure to sit by myself in the back of the room to get some peace. By the time I arrived, he had already latched onto a few other jurors and was talking their ears off. He gave me a look as if to say, “Aren’t you going to come sit here with us and chat?” but didn’t miss a beat and continued talking to the female juror who was trapped in his vociferous jabbering.

After waiting for about 15 minutes in the large room, the bailiff arrived and announced, “Good morning! Judge Phelps’ jurors, can you please follow me to the 3rd floor?”

The eight of us headed upstairs. Instead of going into the courtroom, we were led through a nondescript hallway and through a locked door to a small room. This turned out to be the first time I would enter the room that I would ultimately spend many hours in. The eight of us picked seats around a large conference table and proceeded to wait for what would happen next. As we all started chatting, we learned that two of the potential jurors had been in that room all day the previous week. It seemed that the individual questioning was taking so long that the court never got to them on their scheduled day. Those two potential jurors talked about the utter frustration of being in that small room all day, waiting for their turn that never came. We learned from them that, as a result, they were promised that they would be the first to be called in on this particular day. That is exactly what happened. After being in the little jury room for about 15 minutes, the first one of them was called into court by the bailiff. I looked around the room at everyone’s juror numbers and realized mine was the third to last. I figured it could be a while until I was called.

For the rest of the morning, various people were called into the courtroom. Each one of them was away for 45-60 minutes. Some of the people would come back to the jury room briefly to grab their belongings, while others we just never saw again. Throughout this time, the rest of us left in the jury room either worked on our laptops, read a book, or chatted amongst ourselves. True to form, Santa never stopped talking. He would grab the attention of one of the others and never let the other person get a word in edgewise. I was generally trying to keep my head down, keeping up with my work email. Occasionally, I would politely engage with Santa but was not able to say much due to his nonstop talking. At one point, he did actually ask me what I studied in school. I stated, “Psychology.” At that point, he exclaimed that he figured as much because he could tell I was intuitive and a good counselor, among other things. I thought to myself, "I have no idea how he has come to any conclusion about me since he has not let me or anyone else say much."

Throughout the morning, four of the people who had started the day with us were called in and then went on their way. At one point, one of the potential jurors came back to the jury room after her interview, and she was visibly shaken by the experience. She exclaimed that it was the worst experience of her life and that they had absolutely grilled her. She stated that after almost an hour of questioning, they finally acknowledged that her anxiety was so great that she could be released from her summons. She was practically crying about the experience she had, and she stated that the questioning was terrifying and that they were so mean to her. I thought to myself, "Can it really be that bad?" I didn’t think there was anything for me to be anxious about, but her terror did give me a bit of pause.

At noon, they sent the four of us who were left off for a 90-minute lunch break. It was a relief to get out of that room and away from Santa's constant chatter. As we returned at 1:30 p.m., thankfully, Santa was immediately called into court for his questioning. I was now there with the familiar Juror 123 and a couple of other folks. All of us immediately started laughing about how Santa just would not shut up, and we all took a deep breath of relief. We went on to chat in a normal, give-and-take conversational way about nothing in particular. After about 45 minutes, the bailiff entered the jury room and said, "Alright, Juror 119, please follow me into the courtroom." I had an excited feeling of butterflies in my stomach. I had no idea what they were going to ask me, but I was anxious to finally get to it.

As I walked into the courtroom, everyone there was standing as they had been the last time I entered that room a few weeks prior. I sat down in seat number 1 of the jury box, and Judge Phelps told the rest of the courtroom that they could be seated. Judge Phelps then introduced me to both parties as Juror #119 and explained what would happen with time from both parties to ask me a variety of questions. I nodded in acknowledgment and stated that would be fine.

The defense team started with a female attorney named Ms. Emma Scanlan. Ms. Scanlan asked me how I felt about being there, and I answered that I felt it was “important." I stated that "I have done it before, and I really don’t mind. I think it’s an important thing that folks should do.”

The fact that I had been a juror before piqued her interest, and she then asked about the case I was on and if I was the foreperson. I acknowledged that I was and said I enjoyed the leadership role.

She then asked about what I did for work, and I described that I was a sales manager for a broadcast equipment company. She had noticed on my questionnaire that I had been involved in a neighborhood homeowners association lawsuit. We talked through the details of that, and she asked me who won. I stated, "We won. The other neighborhood finally settled in mediation with exactly what our position was all along."

She asked if I had seen anything about the case, and I stated that I had not heard a word about this case. She asked for my reaction to knowing that it was about a police officer. I answered, “I don’t really have a reaction per se. Whether it’s a police officer or not, I am just interested in the facts of the case.”

She got into some detail about my answers to the questionnaire. She asked me to state situations in the news when I didn't think certain police officers were professional. I quickly cited the police officer in the George Floyd case. She asked if someone being a police officer would make me presume he is guilty or innocent. I stated, “No. It’s really about the facts of the case."

She then started to ask about the homeless and whether they are more prone to being violent. I stated that they are about as prone as anyone else. I went on to say, “Look, if you are homeless, there is probably a greater chance that you are dealing with a difficult mental situation, but that can happen to anyone. I know people in my life who are not homeless but have those issues.”

She asked if I had any views on how police treat homeless people. I answered, “Not really. I think that the police need to do their job and hold people accountable regardless. While someone can be dealing with difficult mental situations, that does not give them license to endanger the public. The police are there to ensure that the public is not endangered.”

She asked if I would have judgments on people just because they are homeless. I exclaimed, “I don’t think so.”

She then wanted to know if, aside from George Floyd, there were other situations where I thought police acted wrongly. I recounted, “I am old enough to remember the LA riots and how all that happened. What happened in that case was another situation that was pretty egregious.”

She asked if I could recall other cases in the media regarding law enforcement. I said, “Yeah, well, I know of the case in St. Louis where police entered the wrong address. That felt like a very tragic situation. Things should not have happened the way they did, but it was very unfortunate that they did.”

Ultimately, she asked if I could listen to all the information and make an unbiased decision. I confidently answered, “Yeah, I would say that as a general rule, I am a very fair and thoughtful person. I don’t jump to conclusions.”

She continued, asking if police are more credible than other witnesses. I answered, “About the same as anyone else. Police are human beings. As much as a general person on the street is credible, I would listen to the facts and the testimony and make that determination. I am not the type of person who says that because someone is a pastor, for example, they are more credible in certain ways or not. It all depends on the circumstances.” Ms. Scanlan asked, "So you would say that you would judge the credibility of each witness regardless of whether they were a civilian or law enforcement?" I stated, “Yeah, I don’t think it has anything to do with their title. It has to come down to whether what they are saying holds water.” With that, after about 10-15 minutes of discussion, she had no further questions.

Then it was the prosecution's turn. A tall, friendly-looking gentleman named Mr. Angelo Calfo approached. He first asked me about my job and whether I am a “manager of people.” I let him know that “I am an individual contributor. Everyone in my line of work has manager in their title. I manage accounts.” He went on to quiz me a bit more on what my company does, and I explained a bit about video switching and how my equipment would likely be used on the news programs he might watch.

Mr. Calfo then asked what I do when I am not working. I spoke about my hobby of sometimes doing triathlons and lamented that I am not currently in great triathlon shape, but I did one in Maple Valley last fall.

He asked what else I like to do. I decided to talk about my involvement with church. I said, "Well, I guess you would call this a hobby. I go to a church out there. I have been an elder, and every now and then I preach. I have preached four times over the last couple of years.” He then asked some more about me being an elder.

He asked about my family, and I answered, “I have a wife and two daughters. I have a daughter who is turning 20 tomorrow, and she is home with us for the summer but is off at school in LA. I have another daughter who is 18 and will graduate next month.”

After talking through my personal life and hobbies, he asked about the case. He stated, "Okay, well, about this case, you have been asked about police and homelessness. We want to know what life experiences you bring to the case. This is not a referendum on law enforcement, but on this particular police officer." He went on to describe what the case was and asked when he framed it that way, "Do you have any particular concerns about being a juror on a case like this?" I answered, “Not particularly. It doesn’t sound like my idea of a fun Monday afternoon, but no, I’m not worried about anything in particular about that.”

Mr. Calfo then said, "It sounds like, regardless of what you have seen in the news about cases like this, you would be fair and impartial?" I exclaimed, “Oh, absolutely.”

He asked, "Do you have any feelings or concerns about jury service in general?" I said, “No, not particularly, except for the difficult time commitment.” I then reiterated my overall feeling that serving on a jury is a duty and an honor.

He asked, "If the state proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt, does the fact that it is a police officer make it hard for you to declare them guilty?" I quickly answered, “No. If the facts of the case lead us to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, absolutely not. What is the saying? Everyone is equal under the law. That is a term that gets used. I absolutely feel that way.” Mr. Calfo seemed to really appreciate that answer.

After about 10-15 minutes of questions from Mr. Calfo, he finally said, "Juror 119, thank you for answering my questions. I don’t have anything further."

At that point, Judge Phelps turned to me and said, “Alright, Juror 119, you remain a member of this jury. So, what that means is that the orders I gave you about not doing any research, no social media, and avoiding any contact related to this case with attorneys still apply. Do you understand these instructions?” I affirmed that I did, and then she released me to go home for the day.

For me, it was all very pleasant and turned out to be an interesting day of jury service that I had never experienced in past jury duties. I went home and wondered what would happen next.

Three days later, my wondering was answered when I saw the now-familiar email address of the court bailiff. This email informed me to report back to the courthouse on Tuesday, May 14th. "Well," I figured, "I guess I really am going to be on this jury." 

I headed to court on the 14th believing that the case would start and that I was part of the jury. Once again, I learned that my assumptions about this case were seemingly never correct.