Category Archives: Ethics

Review of Recent Federal Jury Experience

(week of 9/29/14 through 10/3/14 at U.S. District Court, downtown Baltimore):
This trial was dealing with a single male defendant from Monday through Thursday with deliberations beginning Thursday and completing on Friday on or around 5:30 to 6pm. The charges were four counts. One for direct personal involvement of committing an M&T Bank robbery in Baltimore on Wednesday, 9/25/13, two charges for aiding and abetting two additional different bank robberies in Baltimore County on Thursday & Friday (9/26 & 27/13) by other females with the final charge of conspiracy to commit bank robberies.

My focus will be primarily on our purpose and involvements during our deliberations, which, I feel, are of paramount importance why we should allow ourselves to be involved in this process.

One more point, for the moment, I am not identifying race. If you want to know, ask me in the comments to this and I will respond there.

Just to get the preliminary, leading to it, out of the way…..

On Monday we arrived for the jury pool selection process (which took awhile from 8:30 until about early afternoon). Once we were divided into two groups (I expect because of two separate scheduled trials) we were then “filtered” by questions from the Judge to allow some to be excused. The last question had some of the remaining folks try to convince the Judge to excuse them also. Not many were with the rest disappointed to sit back down. Then we were counted off for moving into the Jury box of 12 plus 2 alternates.

The prosecution’s case started and progressed through about 20 to 22 called witnesses, which included testimonies from 2 of the 3 females that were personally involved in the 2nd and 3rd bank robberies. Defense called only one witness, which was the employer of the defendant. The defendant was not called to testify. Upon completion of the defense, we were given instructions by the Judge on how to proceed with our deliberations and not to discuss anything about the case with anyone at any time outside of the room anywhere else. His instructions were also provided to us in hardcopy for our deliberation session(s).

The bulk of time consumed by the prosecution was presenting the evidence/information to the jury on cell phone usage and how the cell phone to towers works. This, along with the testimonies from various bank tellers and the means by which stolen money is marked/destroyed and/or tracked. Also in determining the ability and validity of fingerprint and DNA evidence in attempting to positively identify and place at the scene individuals responsible for the crimes – oh, and video/pictures as well.

I will not be expanding on that information here.

I would also like to begin the phase of the deliberation review by saying that everyone was well behaved and certainly willing to work the details of going “by the book” to come to a verdict on each of the four charges.

At an early point of our discussions, the (selected) foreman asked to take an informal an anonymous “vote” to see where we stood with a Guilty or Not Guilty verdict. Surprisingly, all but one was Not Guilty for a majority of the charges. There was no unanimous and consistent vote for any of the four charges. But the one individual was consistent with his Guilty verdict for all four charges. This stuck out like a sore thumb for almost everyone in the room and some voiced that they wanted to know if that person would be willing to open up so discussions of presented evidence could sway his vote to change.

So I did. I started by telling them that I had classes on the U.S. Constitution, Maryland Constitution and the Duty of a Jury. I explained that We the People are the 4th branch of government (as implemented by The Jury). (So far, so good, although I recognized some skepticism.) Where it really started the disagreements was when I said we also have to judge the laws (good or bad, and to disregard the bad). One blurted out (that’s for another jury) and I said, no – that is our job as well.

To give one particular, important point of the testimony, the male defendant was accused of robbing the M&T Bank – dressed to appear as a female. But there were problems with the evidence. Video was too dark for us to recognize him immediately (despite the bank teller’s positive identification and pointing to him at the table in court). 911 audio showed a chain of misinformation at first before being corrected to point out the person of interest was a male dressed as a female.

The reason it came to this point was that I noticed that many of the jurors were playing too many what if games. (Picture’s too dark, it could be someone else, it could be his brother (ahem – he doesn’t have a brother – he said he has 2 sisters), no picture of the car, why wasn’t cell data included from the other witnesses, why so many expert witness testimony which didn’t amount to conclusive proof, couldn’t they take simple measurements, someone said the robber was 5’6” and not 5’11”, etc.) It was necessary to occasionally remind them of certain points of testimony because of these instances of “what ifs.”
This kept continuing for quite some time unfortunately, which probably is one of the reasons why we were sent home on Thursday to come back Friday morning and continue deliberations.

A reminder was offered, by me, that we are only dealing with the one defendant’s verdicts – not the females (2 of the 3) who were called to the witness stand. I also had to point out that we are only dealing with a total of four people involved with the crimes of multiple bank robberies. No one else has been found and/or determined by anyone to be involved.

Eventually and throughout there was total agreement that errors and mistakes of omission belonged on both sides (prosecution and defense). We also would have preferred to hope that places of business (banks, gas stations, fast food, small convenience stores, etc.) would invest & replace cameras for higher quality imaging. And also place measurement sticks at each location where cameras are focused. Perhaps placing hidden cameras on counter-tops looking upward as well in order to see faces of those not looking straight at the teller. That could be a big help for the future.

To skip forward a bit, one real big hang-up (particularly for me) was when reading aloud the Judge’s instructions when determining the verdicts for the 4 charges. Everyone was interpreting it as – we had to have a singular, consistent (same) verdict for all four charges at one time. This is where my heels dug in and upset everyone. I knew that was not right. They believed otherwise. I let that go the first time it came up. Eventually though, I brought it up again. I said I wanted to pose a written question to the Judge on that. They resisted, at first. I pointed out that all I wanted was to ask a question and when the Judge tells us the answer, we can proceed. (Up to then, we had prior questions answered. They have to be in writing. So this was no big deal, to me.) I wrote it up, gave it to the Foreman and it was delivered. We received that answer maybe about 15 minutes later (about the same for most prior questions). The Foreman read it to the group. It was precisely as I expected. For each, separate charge a verdict for it must be unanimous, guilty or not. So one, two, three OR four can be guilty or not. Or some mixed, such as 1 & 4 guilty but 2 & 3 not.

The primary point here is what I had mentioned throughout our deliberations. You don’t usually ask questions that you don’t already know the answers to. This is especially true for law enforcement and other points of business. The group forgot that. I had pointed out earlier that “what you read and think you understand” may not actually be what was intended. I hope that everyone learned something of that.

This is especially critical when “affecting someone’s life” – which was so often said by members of the jury early and throughout the deliberations.

To bring this diatribe to a close, we found the defendant guilty on charges 1 & 4 but not guilty on charges 2 & 3 (as there just was really insufficient evident proof for those charges based on the totality of the presented information throughout the trial).

So, yes, eventually I was swayed to agree (based on the totality we had) to change my position on charges 2 & 3. Did I make some mistakes during discussions? Sure. They corrected me and I accepted them without issue. I believe they did the same as – over time – various verdicts changed back and forth. We had opportunities to review evidence and ask questions of it. This, I thought, was extraordinary to me as 30+ years ago in a couple local level jury trials I was on we were not afforded that luxury.

One more thing I would like to point out and it is just as important. I had noticed during those times the Judge was giving us instructions (prior to breaks, lunchtime, end of day, deliberations) that he was clearly knowledgeable and in agreement with the U.S. Constitution. He was definitely a no-nonsense, top flight Judge. So be careful not to use a broad brush for all judges. This one? Excellent and very fair.

Lastly, I recognize that not everyone will view Jury Duty as I do. Perhaps this will be helpful to see and realize this very important function that we can participate in is vital to both sides of the issue, prosecution and defense.

Past Examples of injustice:
Mr. Jewell was incarcerated on charges (some years ago – decades?) and released when the new DNA technology at the time proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not the suspect or offender. (Sorry, can’t recall the specifics other than a part of his name.)

The creation of the Camden Yards baseball stadium was allowed, despite the fact that residents affected had produced more than enough signatures to appeal the taking of their property for this construction project. How do I know this? I have worked with a man who was such affected.

When Irsay had moved the Baltimore Colts out of state in the dead of night, do you really know what precipitated that? He was informed that the Governor and Legislature was about to attempt to take the ownership of the team away from him under the notion of eminent domain. How do I know this? During the classes on the Maryland Constitution, we were shown/given copies of that pending legislation. Also, long since then, I had come to know the equipment manager of the Colts. He was never informed of the move underway that night. He learned of it just like the rest of us that same evening. By the news and watching the Mayflower trucks driving away.

Obamacare – Affecting Us For Awhile

Any one of us still employed and has employer based health benefits already know this to be true.

What follows is the latest impact that I see with my own health coverage through my employer.
Our newest coverage began this July 1st, 2013. It raised our pay period withholding a bit, around $10 to $20. Not too bad, right? Well, what the brochures we were given prior to signing up didn’t bother to show the changes and total impact to our out-of-pocket costs for any and all prescription costs.

Bottom line, prior to July 1st with coverage under BCBS Anthem and Express Scripts online pharmacy, my average 90 day total coverage for 12 prescriptions came to a total close to $286.

Now that we are in a new contract with BCBS Anthem but with CVS Caremark online pharmacy, my average 90 total coverage jumps to $607.

Out of the 12 prescriptions, only four are the heavy hitters. Insulin went from $129 to $339.The needles went from $5 to … $38. The other two went from $40 each to $87 and $101.

My message here is to those thinking Obamacare hasn’t hit yet, well, I have news for you. It has been getting more pronounced in our costs for the past few years to now – and the full effect hasn’t even switched on yet.

The costs I mention above are only starting to impact those of us with employer based health coverage. And most of the employees may not be noticing the impact quite yet due to the recent contracts just now taking effect.

Now, add in this mix where other smaller companies are clearly trying to minimize their costs by: shifting full time employees to part time (under 30 hours as defined by the ACA), dropping spousal coverage (UPS just recently to the tune of ten to 15 thousand people), closing their businesses.

In short, Obamacare is decimating employment, productivity, take home pay, ability to pay monthly bills and quality healthcare. Oh, did I forget to mention doctors that are – no longer accepting Medicare patients and those retiring and about to retire? And what about those students no longer finding the healthcare industry to be an attractive future? Not to mention their rising tuition costs – and even if they can continue and complete their education? Even if they stay and live with their parents? And how can their parents afford to keep them as dependents?

This is just the tip of the Titanic’s Iceberg, folks. And the ACA hasn’t and won’t be in full force starting in 2014 due to Obama delaying portions of the law (for whose benefit?). And that – is being questioned mightily about the legality of his decision – since it is only the job of Congress to enact & change legislation. It is NOT the job of the Executive branch. (Expect to hear more of that soon.)

As a sidenote, but just as related, illegals have been protesting for the right to get free organ transplants. Now, if you were a doctor in a hospital, would you do all of your work without getting paid? How could you continue to live, eat, work and……?

Still think this was a good law? Then you need to seriously rethink that position.
And fast.

Our POTUS Cares Not For Our Rights Nor Our Welfare

Case in point:

He has circumvented the process of a UN Small Arms treaty that our Senate has turned down.

Timeframe: April 2013.

American Journal website.

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23675-23677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09392]
[[Page 23675]]

And folks have been wondering why both parts, defensive weapons and ammunition are getting hard to find….

Everything clear now?

1600 and the DOJ have over-reached their authority. Got that? Now?

Our Bill of Rights, including and especially the 2nd Amendment (per this post) mean zilch to them.
And, dare I say, our lives mean the same damn thing. To them.

Poor Future of Medical Care

It’s not only coming, it’s not only knocking at your door – it’s here, it’s starting.

And you had better pay attention.

An article describing the effect that Obamacare will have – I am experiencing. Right now.

Here is the link to the article in question – Scott Gottlieb: The Doctor Won’t See You Now. He’s Clocked Out.

The quality of care is what is being talked about, largely, in that article. But what I have learned directly is that it is fast becoming more expensive to the patient from the get go.

Bottom line for the doctors are that they are leaving their own private practice to become employees of hospitals.

But there is an immediate impact on what you have to pay.

One of my doctors that I see on a regular basis has done this (become an employee of a hospital). He doesn’t bill me. The hospital does. And it’s using different codes when submitting to your employer’s healthcare insurance that you have.

This means, for those of us not yet retired and having group insurance through an employer, you are no longer paying a fixed fee for a “doctor office visit.” Because it is no longer called a doctor visit.

Instead, you are an outpatient.

And that breaks your contract that you may have with your healthcare coverage through your employer.

What I used to pay as a copay ($40) to him, now instead may be closer to several hundred dollars if your deductible hasn’t been met yet.

Can you afford that? At all? What if you are retired on a fixed income?

Starting to get the picture? Because this is indeed happening right now. I tried arguing this point with the hospital, but they do not listen nor care to. They will not relent.

When I contacted my health insurance, I pointed out they still have that doctor, by name and practice, listed as a preferred doctor in their plan then explained his current employment. Fortunately, the insurance company decided to then make an adjusted payment to the hospital.

What has to be determined now is – if that is a one time thing or not.

Feeling nervous yet?

She Didn’t Dance in the Rain

About Elizabeth Warren, apparently she never participated in Native American events.
So sayeth:

Shelly Lowe, executive director of Harvard University’s Native American Program (HUNAP), told Breitbart News today that U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren had not, to her knowledge, participated in the program’s events while Warren was a professor at Harvard.

Read more at Big Government (by Joel Pollack).

Ohio Bridge Bomb Plot

Yeah, about that ….

Here’s a little something:
Liberal Media Attacks Romney For Supporter Shouting “Treason” at Rally – Silent As Obama Endorsed Goons Plant Bombs on Bridges
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 4:53 AM

And why is the Obama camp silent about being pro Occupy movement now? Too much violent evidence to the contrary I suppose.

Obama Said What?

From Michelle Malkin:

Obama administration advises new French president: For sake of world economy, don’t raise taxes and increase spending

By Doug Powers • May 7, 2012 04:34 PM

Sounds to me it’s a mixed message.

A Beautiful Lesson To Be Learned

The cheerful little girl with bouncy golden curls was almost five. Waiting with her mother at the checkout stand, she saw them, a circle of glistening white pearls in a pink foil box.

“Oh mommy please, Mommy. Can I have them? Please, Mommy, please?”

Quickly the mother checked the back of the little foil box and then looked back into the pleading blue eyes of her little girl’s upturned face.

“A dollar ninety-five. That’s almost $2.00. If you really want them, I’ll think of some extra chores for you and in no time you can save enough money to buy them for yourself.. Your birthday’s only a week away and you might get another crisp dollar bill from Grandma.”

As soon as Jenny got home, she emptied her penny bank and counted out 17 pennies. After dinner, she did more than her share of chores and she went to the neighbor and asked Mrs. McJames if she could pick dandelions for ten cents. On her birthday, Grandma did give her another new dollar bill and at last she had enough money to buy the necklace.

Jenny loved her pearls. They made her feel dressed up and grown up. She wore them everywhere, Sunday school, kindergarten, even to bed. The only time she took them off was when she went swimming or had a bubble bath. Mother said if they got wet, they might turn her neck green.

Jenny had a very loving daddy and every night when she was ready for bed, he would stop whatever he was doing and come upstairs to read her a story. One night as he finished the story, he asked Jenny, “Do you love me?”

“Oh yes, daddy. You know that I love you.”
“Then give me your pearls.”

“Oh, daddy, not my pearls. But you can have Princess, the white horse from my collection, the one with the pink tail.. Remember, daddy? The one you gave me. She’s my very favorite.”

“That’s okay, Honey, daddy loves you. Good night.” And he brushed her cheek with a kiss.

About a week later, after the story time, Jenny’s daddy asked again, “Do you love me?”

“Daddy, you know I love you.”

“Then give me your pearls.”

“Oh Daddy, not my pearls. But you can have my baby doll. The brand new one I got for my birthday. She is beautiful and you can have the yellow blanket that matches her sleeper.”

“That’s okay. Sleep well. God bless you, little one. Daddy loves you.”

And as always, he brushed her cheek with a gentle kiss.

A few nights later when her daddy came in, Jenny was sitting on her bed with her legs crossed Indian style.

As he came close, he noticed her chin was trembling and one silent tear rolled down her cheek.

“What is it, Jenny? What’s the matter?” Jenny didn’t say anything but lifted her little hand up to her daddy. And when she opened it, there was her little pearl necklace. With a little quiver, she finally said, “Here, daddy; this is for you.” With tears gathering in his own eyes, Jenny’s daddy reached out with one hand to take the dime store necklace, and with the other hand he reached into his pocket and pulled out a blue velvet case with a strand of genuine pearls and gave them to Jenny… He had them all the time. He was just waiting for her to give up the dime-store stuff so he could give her the genuine treasure. So it is, with our Heavenly Father. He is waiting for us to give up the cheap things in our lives so that he can give us beautiful treasures.

God will never take away something without giving you something better in its place.

Members of the Socialist Party of America

http://congressmantomtancredo.com/socialist-party-of-america-releases-the-names-of-70-democrat-members-of-congress-who-are-members-of-their-caucus/

Got this from a friend. Make of it what you will.

Candidate Obama Cures Homelessness in ’08

The Wayback Machine revs up in time for today’s SCOTUS examination of the individual mandate.
Here’s looking at your illogic Mr. Pres**ent.

(He was against individual mandate before he was for it. Sound familiar?)