Overruled [irked]

If you are keeping score at home with respect to my jury duty odyssey, the jury came back with a NOT-GUILTY verdict after deliberating all day Friday. Although I was not allowed to participate as an alternate, I did have to sit through all the evidence. Apparently, I got it all wrong.

To recap, this was an excessive force case where a DC police officer was accused of hitting a low-level drug dealer in the head with his gun without cause. Essentially, he was accused of pistol whipping the guy because he was pissed that the guy ran to avoid capture. The bulk of the prosecution’s evidence included:

1.) Forensic testimony and documentation (blows consistent with strike to the head with a hard object on both the front and back of the victim’s head).

2.) Witness testimony by the victim that the officer struck him (minimal weight because of a civil suit but still)

3.) Three prior consistent statements by the victim around the time of the incident corroborating his in-court testimony on the primary point (the officer struck him with the butt of his gun without cause)

4.) An audiotape of the incident with the defendant’s statement “I’ll bust you in your head AGAIN.” This piece of evidence is particularly strong since it can be taken as an admission that the defendant had hit him once already.

Defense put on two witnesses, including the defendant. In addition to not contesting the above facts, the defendant stated rather pointedly that he left the scene because he was “done with him [the alleged victim]” despite the fact that the guy had sustained head trauma during the arrest (accidental or on purpose) and was bleeding from the head. Nice. It was a credibility judgment on my part, but damn did you get cold and uncaring from this guy. The prosecutor picked up on it and mentioned it in closing.

On the whole, I cannot imagine what happened in deliberations that resulted in an acquittal. The question before the jury was very narrow: did the defendant hit the alleged victim with his pistol, yes or no? No chad on the ballot or anything tricky. Just goes to show that either I don’t understand how the average juror thinks or the American jury system is broken. It’s got to be one or the other. As you’ll recall, I didn’t even think this case should have made it to trial…