Volume 36, No. 2 - March/April 2006 Campus Law ... - IACLEA

The Distance from Probable Cause to Reasonable Doubt
Continued from page 31
Our deliberations lasted about 45 minutes
or so, and in the end, we all had the same
basic point of view. We all believed the
defendant “did it,” because it seemed
unlikely a person would admit driving the
car unless he had. However, it was possible
he was confused when he spoke; and there
was no “evidence,” other than his
statement, to show he was the driver.
he said, was based on the fact that the
first person to be thrown out of the
driver’s door (which had been thrown
open by the crash) would have been the
driver who would have been thrown in
the direction the door was facing at the
time of impact. Since Jeremy had landed
in a direct line with this theory, he believed
Jeremy had been the driver. He
said the defendant would have been the
second person thrown out of the car, landing
where he did because the car was
spinning around the pole after the car hit
it. The prosecutor tried to get the witness
to change his story, but he repeated
that it was “scientifically, the most likely”
scenario.
The defendant did not testify.
The Closing Statements: The defense
attorney reviewed the evidence
with the jury, asking us to make our decision
based primarily on the “scientific
evidence,” specifically, the theory provided
by his expert witness. He also talked
about the fact that after the accident, his
client was confused and hurt; and at the
hospital, he had been put on medications
— he obviously wasn’t thinking clearly
or making accurate statements. Reminding
us that he and the defendant agreed
with most of the trial testimony, the attorney
told us he had presented expert
testimony that contradicted the assertions
made by the State. This was, he said, “reasonable
doubt” that his client was driving,
and we therefore had to find him innocent
of the charges against him.
“Use your common sense,” the prosecutor
told us. The defendant admitted
twice that he was the driver, and it seemed
“convenient” that he would now recant
his earlier statements. She repeated this
several times, asking the jury to think
about what the defendant had said, what
the State Police Trooper believed, and
that a young man had died due to the
defendant’s reckless actions. He should
be found guilty, she urged.
Come learn some new tricks…
… at the 16 th Annual IPMBA Conference
An international event for public safety personnel on bikes
May 6-13, 2006 ~ Dayton, Ohio, USA
www.ipmba.org
Call: 410-744-2400 ~ Email: info@ipmba.org ~ Visit: www.ipmba.org
The Judge’s Charge: The next 45
minutes or so was taken up with the judge
explaining each of the charges again, including
each of the elements needed to
support the charge. He also gave us a
primer on the concept of “reasonable
doubt,” and explained that under the law
if we had reasonable doubt, we had to
find the defendant not guilty. The “alternate”
juror was then selected by lottery,
the judge told us to go to the jury room
to conduct our deliberations, and we left
the courtroom.
Deliberations: The alternate juror was
put in a separate room and she did not
participate in any of the deliberations or
the verdict. Not sure exactly where to
begin, we decided to review all the evidence,
so we looked at all the pictures,
went over the diagram of the accident
scene, and talked about the testimony. I
wasn’t convinced that Jeremy had to be
the driver, and using a paperclip holder
(the car) and pencil (the pole) I found in
the room, I tried to reenact the accident
as best I could. We all took part in my
show and tell; but in the end, it was basically
inconclusive. The officers’ testimony
boiled down to the fact that the defendant
had admitted driving the car, but
there was no physical evidence, including
that gathered by the State Police
Trooper, that he was, indeed, the driver.
Bumping into that evidence was, of
course, the “scientific” evidence provided
by the expert witness. According to him,
Jeremy was the driver and his view certainly
made some sense and was plausible.
Our deliberations lasted about 45 minutes
or so, and in the end, we all had the
same basic point of view. We all believed
the defendant “did it,” because it seemed
unlikely a person would admit driving the
car unless he had. However, it was possible
he was confused when he spoke;
and there was no “evidence,” other than
his statement, to show he was the driver.
In fact, any such evidence showed that
Jeremy was “most likely” the driver, not
the defendant. That was “reasonable
doubt,” and we followed the law, finding
the defendant not guilty.
Continued on page 33
32 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal