featuring guest authors; crafting tips and projects; recipes from food editor and sleuthing sidekick Cloris McWerther; and decorating, travel, fashion, health, beauty, and finance tips from the rest of the American Woman editors.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

WOULD A MYSTERY WRITER SIT ON JURY FOR MURDER? AUTHOR MICHELE DRIER DID!

Ever wonder if a mystery writer would be chosen to sit on a jury for a murder trial? Author Michele Drier writes the Amy Hobbes Newspaper Mysteries, a paranormal romance series, and is currently working on the first book in The Stained Glass Chronicles, which she calls a dark cozy series. Today she joins us to talk about her experience when summoned to jury duty. Learn more about Michele and her books at her Amazon author page.

Murder? On a Jury? Moi?
When the jury summons envelope showed up, I put it aside to look at later. I could have asked to be taken out of the pool, I’m old enough to have been excluded.

I believe in civic duty, though. Always vote, even in strictly local elections. Obey traffic laws. So on the appointed date, I set my alarm for 5:30 a.m. in order to get to the jury assembly room before 8 a.m., coffee mug and ebook reader handy. I figured a piece of cake. Even on the off chance my name was called, I go to a courtroom, sit in the back, watch as a jury was chosen and then head home, dismissed.

This was not to be. I was in the first group called to report to a courtroom. Once there, I was in the first eighteen people to be seated for voir dire (when the judge and attorneys ask questions). I’d carefully written down that I was an author of murder mysteries on my questionnaire, thinking this was a slam-dunk for dismissal as the case was murder.

The judge asked what my favorite book was (I’ve probably read thousands) and who my favorite author was (before my jaw hit the floor I managed to come up with Agatha Christie), the attorneys asked if I would wait to hear all the evidence before I made up my mind and bang, I was juror #7.

It was a murder case, but the defendant called the sheriff’s office and announced he’d shot his wife, so our job was to sift through testimony and evidence and come up with the degree; first or second degree murder or manslaughter.

The defendant was a young man in his early 20s who’d shot his female partner and killed her. There were no witnesses; it happened in the middle of the afternoon in the mobile home they shared with their 3-year-old son. We saw pictures of the scene, pictures of her dead on the bed, pictures of the gun and ammunition, pictures of the mobile home and pictures of their cars. We heard testimony from another man she was dating, the defendant’s closest friend, the victim’s mother and a psychologist the defense retained to interview the defendant after he’d been in jail for about 18 months (right before the trial).

It was just a sad tale of domestic abuse and jealousy. One of the pieces of evidence used by both the defense and prosecution was a Facebook message that he’d posted on the page of his girlfriend’s other lover. “You don’t mess with someone else’s wife.”

We heard from forensic experts on gunshot residue, blood spatter (there wasn’t any, it pooled on the mattress under the exit wound), stippling (gun powder marks on her face), to judge how close he was to her and at what angle the shot was fired. We saw autopsy pictures clearly showing the entry and exit wounds.

There were text message conversations and cell phone records to give us a picture of what happened the day he shot her and what he did immediately after (left in her car, with the gun, drove around somewhat aimlessly until he called the sheriff about 45 minutes later.)

After about four days of testimony—broken up by a holiday, unavailable witnesses and other court matters—almost three weeks after I’d first reported, we were given the case and began deliberations. I was chosen the foreperson and watched each person wrestle with the evidence and their own conscience and understanding. The choice we had ultimately was between first and second degree murder, with the only factor separating those two decisions being premeditation.

In California, the jury instructions and definitions of the varying degrees of murder and manslaughter are very clear and the definition of “premeditated” doesn’t have any time constraints. Premeditated can be as little as a few seconds and hinges on testimony and evidence as to the defendant’s state of mind and preparations before pulling the trigger.

Twelve people, six men and six women, strangers to one another, were locked in a room, handed all the evidence and told to come up with a verdict. At the end of the penultimate day, ten people voted for first degree and two for second degree. When we came back the next morning, it was eleven to one. I asked each of us to give the one piece of evidence or testimony that made them believe it was premeditated and finally, we were unanimous on first degree. My piece was that there was only one shot, a kill-shot to her face, that entered next to her left nostril and exited through her brainstem, killing her instantly. He testified he never shot the gun before.

During this process, I was reminded, and reminded my fellow jurors, we could only use the evidence and testimony we heard and saw. Several people were concerned about the child, but that was beyond our purview. Some people wanted to understand the relationship that led to the murder, but that was also beyond our purview.

As mystery writers, we’re free to explore the other motivations, points of view, secondary characters surrounding the actual event, but it was a good lesson to hear again—rely on the evidence.

Edited for Death
Amy Hobbes never expected to solve anything tougher than a crossword puzzle. When she left her job as a journalist in Southern California, she planned to give the adrenaline a rest, but her next job, managing editor of a local newspaper, delivers some surprises. After a respected Senator and World War II hero dies and two more people turn up dead, the news heats up. Both victims had ties to a hotel owned by the Senator's family. With the help of reporter pal Clarice and the new man in her life, Phil, Amy uncovers a number of shadowy figures, including a Holocaust survivor who's spent sixty years tracking down Nazi loot. It's a complex and dangerous puzzle, but Amy can't walk away until she solves it.

Buy links

10 comments:

Michele Drier said...

Thanks for hosting me, Anastasia. It was an interesting experience and the killer is going to be sentenced Friday. One of my fellow jurors is going to the hearing and I may go, as well.

ANASTASIA POLLACK said...

You're welcome, Michele. We're always happy to have you stop by.

Jodi Rath said...

Wow, Michele, that rings true to a lot of what I endured for several years in my first marriage and what happened with his second wife to a degree. I would find it difficult to not think about the child. I am an emotional person and my emotions tend to lead me--that would be difficult especially with what I've been through personally. Thanks for sharing your story! Jodi Rath

Judy Alter said...

Interesting experience Michele. I was always afraid of being called to a murder trial, afraid it would be emotionally draining. But you seem to have handled it like a learning experience. Like Jodi, I would have been concerned about the child. I think maybe because as writers we explore the why as well as the what, the emotional distance would be hard to maintain.

Vicki Batman, sassy writer of sexy and funny fiction, blogger at Handbags, Books...Whatever said...

Thank you for sharing your experience. I've never sat on a big deal one. I've been called to sit on panels (in fact, Troy Aikman was called the same day as me). I find the process slow, but fascinating.

Anonymous said...

I worked on several death penalty trials as part of a defense team and on behalf of the whole world: we need impartial jurors to make the whole thing work! We need witnesses to tell what they know, even if it's bad, not to get "someone off" from prison but to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial and the rest of us get justice. Go to the sentencing, see it all! Know that the rest of us are holding your hand! (and yes, I write about my cases!) Laura Hernandez

Barb Goffman said...

Great post, Michele. Fascinating insight into the jury process. And such a sad situation, too.

Michele Drier said...

Wow, thanks Jody, Judy, Laura and Barb! It's difficult to take to emotion out, but necessary to judge the act solely on the evidence.

Michele Drier said...

Vicki, you stiLl might get called. The problem is you don't know what the trial is for until you're at least seated in the courtroom.

Linda T. said...

Fascinating inside look at your jury experience, Michele!