Dear Editor; An article in the “Cordell Beacon” a couple weeks ago got my attention and made me consider what it would be like to have to serve as juror on the trial of a man accused of in alleged inappropriate contact with a four year old girl. My first thought was, “He can kiss his life and family goodbye”.
Think about the evidence and actions one would be required to consider before reaching a decision to vote to convict and send a man to prison for what would amount to the rest of his life. A decision of this magnitude should be reached only without any reasonable doubt.
This causes one to stop to think about just how fair, impartial, and right the judicial systems of our nation, our state, and our counties really are. Are all people innocent before the law until convicted of wrong doing by a jury of peers?
The afore mentioned news article gave cause to think about the accusation itself: a four year old girl contacted in an inappropriate manner. Mother says the child told her. Question! How did the subject come up between mother and child several months after the event?
Question! What has the relationship of the accused with the mother and child been?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not addressing guilt or innocence of the accused. I’ve just suggested an objective look at the events as reported in the newspaper.
The official report of the alleged incident was followed by an interview of the child. this interview was conducted by at least two adults, one was the mother and the other a stranger. Several questions are asked in various ways and Mother’s sober face would indicate that answers are expected. This would be accomplished in a manner proper and above board, but most likely the jury would only get a report about it. When the case involves a minor’s privacy that becomes the critical issue. There the issue for the prosecution.becomes a matter of, “Just trust me”.
After the interview an arrest was made.
The accused appeared in court a “Not guilty” plea was entered and one hundred thousand dollarbail was set to insure ·that a lifetime resident would not flee his home, family, and friends. A trial date is set and the next step is the detailed report to the local newspaper. This brings into the play the critical verdict of public opinion.
The evidence so far collected may or may not bear on the case but it may be mentioned to color the character of the accused in order to show that he could have done the deed. If this happens the judge would probably instruct the jury to forget what was said. Hmmm.
As the case concludes and the jury receives it The Judge will instruct the jury as to what the law says and what they must do as jurors and what their options are with a guilty verdict. Not a lot will be said about what a juror can do if reasonable doubt should crop up and how it could affect a decision.
Doubts might be part of any decisions one makes. “Reasonable doubts” are usually reared by conscience. Reasonable doubts and peaceful sleep are not good bedfellows. It is the obligation of the prosecution to address and lay aside any reasonable doubt that might come up in the mind of any juror.
Thoughts like these make me glad I’m getting too old to get called for jury duty. I just wonder if I am the only one that thinks like this?
Sign me; C-Sap from Cordell Charlie Sappington Cordell OK