A Whole New World: Forensics, Fingerprints and Photographs
After the opening statement of the prosecution, they began presenting their case.
What followed was 5 days of expert witnesses, photographs of evidence and the crime scene, finger print analysis, explanations about guns, projectiles, wound sites and the path of bullets. Painstakingly and thoroughly the prosecution reconstructed every movement and action of the defendants behavior, and any other relevant information they thought would help to prove the case.
I learned all about the rural areas of delta, McCormick, Holden, Oak City, Scipio- sleepy little agricultural towns off the map of anywhere I had been. I learned about crime labs, "processing" vehicles, gun-shot residue (GSR) testing, Medical Examiners and autopsies. Footwear impressions, firearms experts and fingerprints. All of the evidence pointed to Roman, with little to no discrepancy.
Detectives and officers were called to testify. The limo driver testified. Maps were displayed. Photographs were submitted. Transcripts of the confession were debated about. Often there were little debates by the defense and prosecution about what could be submitted. If I recall correctly, there were almost 200 pieces of evidence that were submitted in the case, and about 30 witnesses.
After a witness testified, the defense lawyers would sometimes ask cross-examination questions. These were always short, and seemed to be unrelated. This is where I got the impression of them being short. Calculating. Manipulative. I felt like they were taking the opportunity to create doubt or discredit a witness in any way possible. Of course, in retrospect I can see why this would be an important part of the defense strategy. But because we didn't know what his angle was, they just seemed to be random and non-sensical questions. And maybe some were, just to throw the prosecution off the defense strategy: To the detectives, "What mental state was Roman in when he confessed? Did he have any injuries? ". To the officer who observed the drug deal in McCormick- "Did you observe who was in the vehicle? How far away were you?", "what was the lighting like?" etc. Each cross examination left me questioning the defenses' motivations and what their case could possibly be.
More than anything, I remember the days of the trial being fascinating. I had never been exposed to or even heard of these kinds of experts or situations. I felt like I had stepped into an entirely different surreal world. Listening to all the evidence and witnesses I felt like I was in a college course on crime scene reconstruction. I took copious notes in case I would be tested at the end.
I didn't understand then, but do now, that it's the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant, beyond reasonable doubt. So even if something is completely obvious, it is their burden to reconstruct it with evidence. That's a pretty high threshold, and that means a lot of work for them, without knowing anything about what the defense is going to argue or the doubts they are going to try to cast.
Evidence and Ignorance: The Role of Not Knowing
I also didn't understand why we could or couldn't have certain evidence- like cell phone records or a written statement of Ryan Greathouse, and why certain things weren't allowed- like recalling or retelling what someone once said. As jurors, we were not privy to what evidence was allowed and not allowed, or why or why not we couldn't have access to certain evidence. We were often escorted out of the court room so the judge and lawyers presumably could debate about some interpretation of a point of law that we knew nothing about.
Of all the people involved the proceedings, I felt like the jurors were the most kept in the dark and the most ignorant- which seemed strange to me considering we were the ones who were making the final decision. All along I felt to raise my hand to ask a question, demand certain information, or just to interview the witnesses myself.
There came a point though when I realized that I wasn't chosen as a juror because I was an expert or was expected to understand the legal reason behind everything that was going on. Our trial system had been created over hundreds of years by people much smarter than me, and had been carried out thousands and maybe even millions of times, and that I had to trust those who were telling me what to do that they knew better than I did what was going on, and that my ignorance was probably part of that process. I needed to just trust them and do my part. And for an entire week, that part was to sit like a sponge and absorb an ever growing mountain of evidence against Roberto Roman.
The Cold Hard Facts
Overall I would say that the presentation of the evidence and witnesses was rather stoic and factual- non emotional. Probably because most of the witnesses were professionals and didn't know Josie Fox and have testified in hundreds of murder trials as forensic experts or detectives. I'm sure that this sort factual presentation of evidence is intentional as well. I learned why they say Lady Justice is blind- it's not supposed to matter if you're rich or poor, Hispanic or White, old or young, mean or nice, likeable or despicable. You are to be tried by laws, not emotions. You are weighed in the balance of justice by evidence and facts, not by an emotionally compelling case.
But there was one break in presentation of the cold hard facts. It was when Rhett Kimball, Josie's superior and a respectable and veteran police officer, began to choke up as he recounted finding the body of Josie Greathouse in the road. That is when I realized how real the scenario was. How personal it was. Even 2 1/2 years later, I could feel his grieving over the loss of one of his officers. I knew that my job wasn't to feel sympathy or be swayed by my emotions. But I couldn't help but tear up as he spoke.
The rest of the trial the judge, lawyers and others did an amazing job of making the trial feel like a case of connect the dots, and there was very little emotional engagement.
Every time we went on break (every couple of hours) we were told that we were not to dicuss the trial with other jury members, or anyone else for that matter, so it seemed kind of surreal. As jurors, all we could do was banter with each other and talk about menial things and keep the conversation light. It made it feel like we were all watching a TV show rather than being asked to make a decision that would affect lives.
In retrospect, I think this emotional disconnect is probably a necessary part of the justice system. If the weight of the situation becomes too real or personal to jurors, it would become completely overwhelming and paralyzing. Being kept from knowing the weight and context of the trial, and being restricted from processing the details, helped us to stay objective and look at the evidence as impartial parties.
The Confession
One particularly interesting part of the trial was the taped confession of Roberto Roman. He was caught in Beaver and taken to the Beaver County Sherrif's office with 2 detectives and interviewed. It was in this interview that Roman confessed shooting a cop. However, while the visual picture was fine, for some unknown reason, the audio of the recording was not audible.
I am still not sure how it is possible that in such a high profile case it wasn't absolutely assured that the equipment recording the confession of a murder was working and in working condition. It was incredibly frustrating as a juror not being able to have a transcript of audio version of the actual confession and having to rely on the testimony of the interviewing detectives. This became a real sticking point later in our deliberations- not being able to discern the accuracy of the confession.
The Defense Speaks
By the time Thursday rolled around, I was beginning to feel more used to my role as a juror. Arrive at the court in the morning. Go through the metal detectors and directly to a room with the rest of the jurors- do not talk or make eye contact with anyone else. Be escorted up stairs to a waiting room with bagels, juice and other breakfast items. Talk amongst ourselves about our lives outside of court. Then the balif would come get us and escort us in order to the court. Listen to evidence and testimony for a few hours. Break for lunch. Come back and repeat until about 5pm.
I started getting used to hearing "All rise" when we came in the court. It made me remember how important our role was, and prepared us all to sit through another day of evidence. So by the time all of the evidence was presented on Thursday afternoon, I think we were surprised when the prosecution rested its case. We thought this trial would continue for 2 weeks.
I would say by the time the prosecution rested its case on Thursday, we were all pretty persuaded of the guilt of Roberto Roman. Of course, because we had been counseled over and over again to not come to any final conclusions and to take in all of the evidence, I'm sure we were all willing to hear the defense's case. But I personally couldn't see where there was even the smallest amount of wiggle room in the presentation of the evidence. Everything had been documented. I felt a sense of pride on behalf of the prosecution and the excellent work they had done in their thorough presentation. I remember thinking, this kind of court presentation and polish must come after years and years of experience. They did an excellent job.
What happened next we would have never anticipated. The defense stood up and called its first witness: Roberto Roman. I could almost feel the oxygen being sucked out of the room when they called his name. I remembered in the questionnaire that we filled out, the only witnesses the defense had listed were a psychiatrist and maybe one other person. I never anticipated that the actual defendant would take the stand.
Up Next: The testimony of Roberto Roman
No comments:
Post a Comment