Jury Duty Part III: The Trial Day 2

The next morning we arrived around 8:30 AM ready to start, however there were two problems, one of the witnesses was stuck in snow in the Mountains, and one of the Jurors was in the emergency room with his son. After the judge conferred with all parties, we were told to return at 1:30 PM to start.

Once we got back into the courtroom, the Prosectuion's third and final witness, was a forensic expert, who described what happens to a person as they consume alcohol in fine detail both outwardly and physiologically. The defense's cross was one question "Did you ever examine my client (the Defendant). Answer: NO.

The prosecution rested and the Defendant called one witness: The Defendant.

The defendant (probably in his 50's or early 60's) testified that he had gone to the party with a date, and did not have any alcohol that evening. One of the guests became obnoxious and belligerent and very drunk, so the defendant offered to take the man home who lived a few miles away. It took him about a half hour to get the man home because he was confusing on his directions. He finally got the man's license and the address and since he was familiar with the area, finally found the man's home and drove back to the party. The policemen the day before had already acknowledged that upon further review they had been wrong to think that the defendant had gone through a red arrow, which the Defendant agreed with. He didn't remember whether he had used his turn signal or not on the left turn. When he parked at the house, he saw the police lights. He refused the roadside maneuvers, because people were coming out of the party to see what was going on. (The 2nd policeman acknowledged this also, as his first move out of the car was to keep them back). He was handcuffed and taken to the station, where he initially refused the blood test. He was also bothered by a back/neck condition which was exacerbated by handcuffing behind his back and he had requested them handcuff him in front and he would go willingly. He said that after sitting in the station awhile he then asked to take the blood test.

The defense rested and closings began.

The prosecutor based her argument on a premise that if you were leaving a store and were asked to look in your bag on your way out to make sure you weren't stealing something, most innocent people would do so. Relating that to the roadside maneuvers, why would he refuse to let someone "look into his bag" if he were innocent? The cops had no reason to lie, and smelled alcohol, so the defendant was guilty.

The defense countered that he was wrongly followed to begin with, he did nothing wrong and the police were pre-dispositioned to finding DUI's that night and that is why they were following him. We should find him not guilty.

The prosecutor got one more chance and reiterated the "not showing us his bag" metaphor.

The judge then gave us 20 pages of instructions which included the charges, with two options on the first count: Driving under the influence of Alcohol (DUI) or Driving While Alcohol Impaired (DWAI)

We then retired around 4 PM for deliberations.

Next: Deliberations and Verdict