Last week I was on jury duty, and what a week it was, both riveting and emotionally draining. The case involved a man in his late thirties who was accused of Gross Sexual Assault and Unlawful Sexual Contact with an eleven-year-old boy.
Right from the start, the evidence was against the defendant. On the first day of jury duty, we saw a video taken by a police officer—who was wearing a bodycam—when he went to the defendant’s home to collect his phone. As soon as the defendant, who was outside, saw the policeman get out of the cruiser, the defendant booked it inside. Then, the defendant made the police officer wait outside for five minutes before letting him in. After which, the defendant proceeded to tell lie after lie about how he didn’t have his phone and couldn’t remember the number. When the police officer informed the defendant that his home would be torn apart if he didn’t produce the phone, the defendant finally took the police to where the phone was hidden, in a vent in the bedroom.
The second video we saw was filmed the day after the alleged assault when a councilor at a local sexual assault unit interviewed the boy. I will not go into any details except to say the boy looked as though he wished the floor would open up and swallow him. He wore sneakers with Velcro straps, and during a particularly tense part of the conversation, the boy ripped the straps back and forth, back and forth. I want to add that the councilor was very respectful and kind, using different approaches to put the boy at ease.
The third compelling piece of evidence came from DNA testing and the testimony of forensic experts. The morning after the alleged assault, the boy told his mother what had happened, and fortunately there had been no shower to wash the evidence away. The mother immediately brought the boy to the local sexual assault unit, where DNA swabs were taken, and the boy was interviewed. Only two DNA profiles were found under the clothes on the boy’s body, his own and the defendant’s.
The defense lawyer brought in his own forensic expert, who maintained that DNA could travel in many ways from person to person, with sneezing being a prime example. This would turn out to be the defense lawyer’s main argument, that his client’s DNA profile under the clothes on the boy’s body could have come from anywhere.
When all the evidence had been presented, when all the witnesses had been called, and the closing arguments made, the jurors went to the jury room, and it was the court’s turn to wait for us.
As it turned out, the court only had to wait for a little under an hour. We discussed all the evidence presented and the various testimonies, including what we had seen in the videos. It didn’t take us long to agree that the defendant’s DNA profile under the boy’s clothes didn’t get there by way of sneezing or through any other route that DNA might take. We found the defendant guilty of both Gross Sexual Assault and Unlawful Sexual Contact.
This, of course, is an abbreviated version of what happened in court. Out of respect for both the boy and my readers, I have avoided using the upsetting language that I heard. I expect you will be able to read between the lines.
In conclusion: I was so impressed with the judge, who was cool and even during the whole trial; with the passionate prosecuting lawyer, whom one juror described as a pit bull; with the defense lawyer, who had a thankless job; and with my fellow jurors, who listened intently and closely to both sides. We took our job seriously. Finally, I was also impressed with the way that technology was used as evidence by the prosecution. The DNA profiles and the videos made the picture much clearer.
Next week, I will return to more pleasant subjects—Clif’s birthday, fall coming to Maine. But as my jury duty indicated, life is not always rosy in the hinterlands, where people commit serious crimes, just the way they do anywhere else.
