Jury Duty Part IV: Deliberation and Verdict

Note: to read the case from the beginning start here

At 4PM we left the court room and got down to the business of deliberating in the jury room.

During the trial we were allowed to take notes in notebooks provided to us by the court. In many cases the evidence is submitted during the trial, and the jury gets it as part of their deliberations. In our case we had no evidence, so all we really had were our notes on the testimony in the courtroom.

We also were instructed to decide innocence or guilt based on the evidence presented in the trial. It really had nothing to do with whether we liked the prosecutor or defense better. We could use our own life experiences to help us judge the testimony.

The first thing the Jury is supposed to do in deliberations is choose a foreperson. We decided not to do that up front, and instead decided to take a little bit of time to see what each person thought about the case. So the 6 of us each took a turn and discussed it.

Here's what we generally thought of the testimony we had heard:

1. 1st Police Officer--Many of us including me, thought that he was enhancing his testimony unnecessarily. When pushed by the prosecution at one point, he claimed the defendant was speeding as they followed him down the road after the first turn. He actually put a number on what he thought the defendant's speed was--30 MPH, "because we had to go around 40 to catch up to him". He also claimed the second turn was about 1/4 mile down the road. One juror pointed out that there was no way a guy in a BMW could be speeding on that road, because of the numerous speed humps on it. This officer also described the odor of alcohol on the defendant as very strong. It also turned out that the distance from the first turn to the second left turn was much further down the road probably closer to a mile which is where the defendant placed it. Most of us seemed to question this officers credibility on his recall of that night.

2. 2nd Police officer--This officer seemed to be more straightforward in his description of the events. When asked if he saw any erratic driving other than not using the left turn signal, he said no. He was asked specifically if he thought the defendant was speeding and he said no. He did say that the defendant did not use the turn signal on the left turn into the neighborhood of the party. He described the odor of alcohol on the defendant as "low or moderate, but distinctly alcohol" and that he smelled like "he had an alcoholic beverage."

3. Forensic Expert--We all pretty much had no idea why she was testifying. We felt she was very believable in her knowledge, but her knowledge of alcohol on the body, though fascinating, was not considered in our decision.

4. The Defendant--The consensus was that we did not believe that he had not had a drink that night before leaving the party. He was definitely nervous on the stand. We also were disappointed that we did not get a clearer explanation for why he did not submit to the roadside maneuvers or the blood test. His testimony was shaky at best.

First the DUI Law for Colorado: Driving under the influence means driving a vehicle when a person has consumed intoxicants which affects the person to a degree that he or she is substantially incapable, mentally or physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle.

As we talked through it, none of us felt that any of the testimony indicated that the defendant's driving that he was driving unsafely even if he had been drinking. None of either officer's testimony showed anything unsafe. They admitted they were wrong about the left turn arrow at the light, and even at 30 MPH, he was probably not speeding because the main thoroughfares are between 35-45 MPH. So nothing was indicated that he was driving recklessly other than not using the left turn signal, which is fairly common by sober people. And without any evidence submitted as to the Blood Alcohol level, the prosecution really had nothing concrete to convict.

On the DUI Charge--NOT GUILTY.

On to the DWAI Law: Colorado DWAI (driving while ability impaired) is similar to Colorado DUI, except that to be convicted of Colorado DWAI, the prosecution is only required to prove that the defendant was affected to the slightest degree, so that the person is less able than he or she ordinarily would have been to exercise clear judgment.

One of the jurors on the initial discussion thought he was guilty of the DWAI, and another was waivering on it or wasn't completely convinced that he wasn't guilty on that. My opinion relied on the second police officer, who I felt was the most believable, in that he said more than once that the man had had "an alcoholic beverage", not "alcoholic beverages" in the plural sense, but very specifically one drink. And once again, there was no evidence of any impairment based on the testimony. I think this argument swayed the two jurors who were uncertain and we arrived at a decision.

On the DWAI Charge--NOT GUILTY.

Now the decisions so far took about 20 minutes of deliberation. The left turn signal charge was much more difficult. Five of us initially went for guilty on the charge, while one person thought he should be not guilty on that charge primarily since he was being followed for the wrong reason in the first place. Surprisingly, we had a nice civil discussion as he raised several other issues about why he thought we should go not guilty, and the other five gave him our reasons for why that didn't persuade us. He eventually got me to waver on my vote briefly. One of the arguments was that we didn't believe the police officers on the alcohol related charges, so why should we believe them on the turn signal? Plus they had been wrong on the left turn arrow in the first place. My final argument was that I was believing the 2nd Police officer in both cases. His testimony had told me that he didn't believe that the defendant was alcohol impaired because he had chosen his words carefully. But I also had to believe him when he said the defendant didn't use his turn signal. The defendant also didn't really defend the left turn signal charge. His only response was that he didn't remember whether he used it or not.

After about 40 minutes of discussion on the left turn signal we arrived at a final decision.

On the Failure to Use Turn Signal: GUILTY.

I made the comment that the attorneys, judge and defendant were probably in the courtroom thinking we were trying to decide between DUI and DWAI and here we were trying to figure out the left turn signal.

Since we still didn't have a foreperson, I volunteered to do it, which just required me to sign the forms with the verdicts and give them to the judge when we returned to the courtroom.

We pressed the button to summon the clerk, and when he came in he asked us if we had reached a verdict, we told him yes, and moments later we were back in the courtroom where the verdicts were read.

Next: Oh, the Things We Didn't Know!