AND JUSTICE FOR ALL - MAYBE EVEN DONALD TRUMP

 

  In January 1986 I was picked for jury duty in the county where I live. This was the first and only time I have ever served on jury duty. Some people don't like serving on juries and try to avoid it if they can but I was looking forward to it. I thought that it would be interesting and I was curious to see how the jury system worked. My service would be for the entire month of January and during that time I was only on two criminal trials but was on numerous civil trials. On civil trials the plaintiff only has to prove 51% of their case in order to win. Two of these civil trials really stood out in my mind. A woman who was struggling to make ends meet was sued by a bank because her ex husband bought a pick-up truck after they were divorced. Her ex husband allowed the truck to be repossessed by the bank for non payment. The bank couldn't get their money from the ex husband because he wasn't working so they went after the ex wife for payment. She was using the same bank that her husband used and the money owed on the truck came out of the woman's bank account. She went to court and got a letter from a judge saying that she was not responsible for her ex husbands debts. When she tried to show the letter to the bank they ignored her and no one from the bank would even talk to her about it or even look at the letter. Even on the stand the bank representatives came across as arrogant and vindictive. She sued them for a very large sum of money. I can't remember what the amount was but I know it was six figures. When the jury was sent back for deliberation we weren't in there five minutes before we came to a decision. I was the jury foreman and the first thing I asked them was if everyone was of one mind on this? I said that in my opinion the bank was totally in the wrong and that I thought that we should award her the full amount of what she was asking for. A vote was taken and it was unanimous in the woman's favor. We all took great satisfaction in rendering that decision. 

The second civil trial that stands out in my mind was the case involving a local pastor. He had been rear ended by a man driving a Porsche while stopped at a red light. The preacher claimed to have a very frail back that had been wired together during numerous operations. I can't remember why his back was in such a condition but he claimed that the accident had caused him severe pain. The lawyer representing the owner of the Porsche did a good job of exposing this pastor as a charlatan who had a long history of suing people after similar accidents. It appeared that he saw the Porsche owner as someone who could be taken advantage of because he was perceived to be wealthy. When pictures of the damage to the pastors vehicle was shown to the jury we couldn't detect any damage at all to his car. The pastor was also asking for a six figure amount in damages. There was one point in the trial when the entire courtroom erupted in laughter. The lawyer representing the Porsche owner was cross examining the preacher. While raising his arms in the air he asked him if he could move easily to the right while preaching. The pastor said that he could. Again with his arms waving in the air he leaned over to the left. What about in this direction? Again the pastor responded in the affirmative. Then as the lawyer waved his arms he bent down facing forward. He asked the preacher if he could do that. And again the preacher said that he could. Then with his arms waving above his head the lawyer started jumping up and down. After he finished the lawyer asked the preacher if he could jump up and down This is when the pastor cracked everyone up in the room by responding. "You know, you would make a great preacher." When we were sent to the jury room to deliberate we realized that we were going to have to give this fake pastor something because by Tennessee law the Porsche driver was technically at fault. He had rear ended the preacher. We only wanted to give him the bare minimum though which was about 10,000 dollars if I remember right. This is what we voted to do and I think that justice was served in this case. 

As I said earlier I was only on two criminal cases. On one trial I was picked as an alternate juror but I still had to sit through the trial in the event that a regular juror had to miss for an illness or some other emergency. The case dealt with an attempted murder. A man had been stabbed and seriously injured. If my memory serves me right the man that was charged with this crime was convicted and sentenced to a term in prison. The other case was a rape charge. During jury selection the question was asked if anyone on the jury had ever been raped or sexually molested or had anyone in our family ever been raped or been sexually molested. As the father of a child that had been molested I raised my hand. I immediately thought that I would be disqualified but very much to my surprise I wasn't. The lawyer representing the man who had been charged with the rape began asking me a series of questions that were very unpleasant and intense. So much so that I had a very difficult time going through such scrutiny in front of crowded courtroom but I calmly and with little emotion answered the lawyers questions. Finally, he came in close to me and asked if I could be fair with his client. I said yes but he repeated the question with more emphasis. I looked him square in the eyes and said that I will not send an innocent man to prison. With that he seemed to be satisfied and went on to question the next juror. To my surprise I was picked to serve on this jury.

The jury was comprised of ten men and two women. Although I didn't know her before the trial one of the women was the mother of one of my son Robbie's best friends. They knew each other from playing sports together. One of the male members of the court lived about three doors down from me and we had always been friendly toward each other. Especially since we got to know each other as members of a Neighborhood Watch group. There was one man whose face was horribly scarred on one side. I assumed that he had been in an aircraft crash since he had been an Air Force C-130 pilot. Since he and I were both Air Force veterans we had a lot in common and hit it off. He told me that he was the only pilot in Air Force history to land a C-130 on one engine. He said that one day he was flying near Pope A.F.B. North Carolina and ran into a violent thunderstorm. The rain was so heavy it drowned out three of his four engines. He looked down and there was just enough of an opening in the clouds that he could see Popes runway and was able to land the plane. I was able to confirm this story years later when I was looking through some statistics about C-130's and found his story. 

 Due to the seriousness of the trial we were sequestered, Which basically means that we were placed under arrest for three days. The judges orders were that we were not to discuss the trial with anyone other than our fellow jurors. We were given an entire floor of a local motel and a sheriff's deputy made sure we never left that floor without an escort. If we ate in a restaurant the deputy was there to make sure that we didn't go out of his sight or violate the rules. Also, we could not communicate with family or friends by telephone. The only places we were allowed to go was back and forth to the courthouse, the motel or whatever restaurant they chose to take us to. After we started deliberations the meals were brought into the jury room. Our mode of travel was either in the back of a police car or a paddy wagon. The trial lasted three days and started around 7:00 AM and ended around midnight. At least the first two days were that way. We finished the trial late in the afternoon of the third day. These were three of the most intense and longest days that I have ever experienced. 

The man on trial was charged with the following. A young woman was asleep on a couch in her trailer when she woke up with a man lying on top of her. This happened late at night or early in the morning hours I believe. Because it was dark she never saw his face during the rape. The man threatened her with a knife and said that he would use it if she didn't do what he said. He anally raped her multiple times that night without a condom and what was particularly heinous he made her perform oral sex on him after each time he penetrated her. There was some fiber and forensic evidence that tied the accused to the crime but the two key pieces of evidence that was really emphasized by the state was a fur lined blue denim jacket that the man was wearing and a scar right next to the man's navel. She could see the scar when she was performing oral sex on him and she could see and feel the jacket he was wearing. The state called to the stand several police officers and the victim as witnesses. The officers and the victim all testified that the scar was right next to the mans navel. One of the police officers even drew a picture on a chalkboard showing the scar adjoining the navel. All of the witnesses agreed with the location of the scar. When the defense attorney asked the accused to lower his pants there was a scar but it was on his side and no where near his naval. For me and several other jurors this was a major discrepancy. As far as the jacket it was obvious that it could not have belonged to the suspect. We were shown his mug shot on the night that he was arrested. The man was very much overweight and he was not wearing the jacket. By the time of the trial he had lost a lot of weight but he was still pretty big. When the defense lawyer asked him to put it on it was so small that he couldn't button it up and the sleeves were very short on him. It was obviously not his jacket. The man testified several times on the stand that the jacket belonged to his brother. We were sent to the jury room fairly early on the third day for deliberation. For the rest of the day things got pretty contentious. On the first couple of votes the tally was something like eight jurors voting not guilty but as the day wore on it finally ended up with four of us voting not guilty and eight voting guilty. I had virtually arrived at this decision the day before and the neighbor I was rooming with was so angry with me that he asked to be moved to another room. Our friendship effectively ended on that day.

We continued debating until very late that afternoon and it was obvious that the four of us who were holding out weren't going to change our minds. The jury foreman sent a note out to the judge that we were hopelessly deadlocked. The judge responded that he had no choice but to end the trial in a hung jury. The two women on the jury, the C-130 pilot and myself hung up the jury. We simply did not believe that the state had proved it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was ironic to me that the two women would rule this way on a rape case but like me and the pilot they were able to lay emotion aside and just look at the evidence. The three keys to our ruling was the fact the woman could not identify the man who raped her and we could not reconcile the discrepancies with the scar and the jacket. I felt good about the way I handled myself in the face of extreme pressure to conform with the majority. I had been tested and I think I handled the situation well. If the state could have proven it's case I would have liked to have seen this monster executed for what he had done or at the very least spend the rest of his life in prison. I was not going to send someone to prison when I was left with such doubt about their guilt. As the mother of my sons friend and myself were walking through the judges chambers he stopped us. We had left our jackets and her purse in there for safe keeping. The judge asked us what our verdict had been and we both replied not guilty. The judge said that he agreed and went on to tell us things that I wish I had known during the trial. He said that the state didn't know that the accused man had a brother. He showed us a picture of the brother and he was slender. I could see him wearing the blue fur lined denim jacket. The brother also had a lengthy criminal record and the accused man had no record. This made us feel even better about our verdict.

 I believe in the jury system but I just don't like how we do it. It seems that lawyers want to pick the dumbest jurors that they can. They want someone who knows nothing about the case or the person's involved. The less they know the better. If I am ever charged with a crime I want the most knowledgeable people on my jury. Especially those with common sense and not necessarily the ones holding university degrees. Just give me someone whose standard is justice above all else. Who realizes that it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence but it is solely up to the state to prove their guilt. That a person truly is innocent until proven guilty. These are principles that far too few people learn but they have to be learned. It should not matter how you feel about someone or how biased you are. Everyone is equal under the law. I despise most Democrats especially Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Bill and Hillary Clinton but I know that if they were charged with a crime I could give them a fair verdict if I was on their jury. The only problem is that Democrats are never charged with crimes and we never have the opportunity to see them on trial. Since the jury system is such a vital part of our justice system we need to be educating people about how they should conduct themselves on a jury. If our schools ever return to actually educating people rather than indoctrinating them we could teach courses on juries in our middle schools and high schools. Maybe even have mock juries.  

 Fat Albert Bragg, the hand picked George Soros New York City district attorney is persecuting Trump right now in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying financial records. This started out as a misdemeanor eight years ago and the statute of limitations has long expired. Bragg has even managed to throw in a felony charge accusing Trump of using the hush money to fund his campaign.  If it were even true this should be a Federal charge and not a state charge. Even the Justice Department has refused to prosecute Trump on this charge when they had the chance because they didn't have a case. I feel pretty certain if Trump could get this before a Federal judge it would be easily thrown out but Bragg's goal here is to tie Trump up, keeping him off of the campaign trail. For the Dems the best case scenario is actually putting him in jail. A possibility that the Commie/ Fascists drool over. Any fair person knows what is going on here. Biden is conducting lawfare against Trump in order to hamper him and maybe even end Trump as a viable presidential candidate. Also, any fair person knows that if Trump had retired from politics after 2021 and said that her would just spend the rest of his life enjoying his fortune and his golden toilets the left would have left him alone. He is the first American president in history to be treated this way. If he were a Democrat he could violate the law with impunity and get away with it but with Trump they have to conjure up fake crimes. 

 This is why I believe that Trump is a patriot every bit as true as our Founding Fathers. He is risking everything to run for the presidency. His fortune, his health, his family's well being, his honor and maybe even his life. I believe that the Dems are capable of murder to keep Trump out of office. One Senator even introduced a bill trying to remove Trump's Secret Service protection if he is incarcerated. This has very little chance of being passed but it would give the Dems a chance to kill him in prison by either suiciding him like they did Jeffrey Epstein or have another prisoner kill him. The left is sending the ordinary American citizen who supports Trump an important message with this lawfare. They are saying if we can go after Trump then we can darn sure go after you. Just one bogus charge against an average American citizen could cost them everything trying to fight it in court. This is the message being sent by prosecuting thousands of January 6th patriots who did nothing wrong. Even the ones who did break the law are being treated much more harshly than the thugs who rioted, destroyed property and murdered people during the George Floyd riots. The same ones who injured over 50 Secret Service officers attacking the White House forcing Trump and his family into the White House bunker for their protection. No one in the capital on January 6th was ever in danger. 

 The rioters killed numerous people during the George Floyd riots including a highly decorated retired police officer in St. Louis. Four people were killed on January 6th and they were all protestors killed by the Washington D.C. police and Capital Hill police. Ashli Babbit was murdered in cold blood by a rogue Capital Hill police officer who was made into a hero by the Democrats and many Republicans. I am reading a book about January 6th and I feel like I am reading a book about the old Soviet Union or present day China rather than America because of the way these patriots have been abused by the government. The bottom line is that we don't have billions of dollars like Trump to fight back. More than likely Trump will not get a fair trial in New York City. Nothing has been fair about the whole process. Getting a fair trial in New York City for Trump is equivalent to the hope that a black person might have gotten a fair trial in Jackson Mississippi in 1955. The best we can hope for is that there is at least one person on Trump's jury that believes in the rule of law and justice. That the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty as charged in the same way that the four of us did on that rape trial. It should not matter if a person is biased toward the defendant. Or how much that they hate or like Donald Trump. If a person can make up their mind to objectively consider the evidence and only then can Trump or anyone else get a fair trial. Unfortunately far too many people are incapable of this.