11:46 PM -:- Posted by Allen    

Interview with Juror 15

We're here today with Juror 15 from the trial recently concluded.

Ah, "Juror 15"? Why have you asked us to refer to you in that way? Why not let us use your name?

15: Because I was part of the process from beginning to end, and not just a spectator. I sat in judgement of the entire thing at every level.

Okay, so you're not saying with this pseudomymn that you were actually on the jury in the trial?

15: No.

Okay. Well, that clears up my next question, because I had been pretty sure that there were only fourteen jurors, twelve regulars and two alternates.

15: Absolutely. I was more like the fly on the wall, the wisp of intent to see the limits of the exercise. I was there to watch, to compare, to judge the performance in the light of all past performances.

Past performances? What do you mean by performance? What past performances?

15: Oh, you know, performances. Actions portrayed by actors on the stage of life. The things that people do, from the perspective of how they go about it.

Are you serious? Life as performance art, when a man's life and liberty are at stake?

15: Definitely. Especially. Particularly when the stakes are high like that. I don't even take notice in the affairs of men until the intensity level gets up there. I've no interest in the mundane.

That's cold, man.

15: From where you sit, I'd imagine a lot of things are. Life. Death. Everybody lives. Everybody dies. Some see it as a struggle, some see it as a celebration. I'm just watching to see how they do that seeing, how they come to their conclusion, and what they do with it.

This trial was an opportunity to really see something. The intensity spread out like vines in every direction, in many flavors. The fearful vines of those whose lives have lead them to the conclusion that they have no power in themselves, and so they came to hope that this man would prevail and set the stage for their own salvation.

The dark snaking shadow-lines that lead into fuzzy, difficult-to-see places where control lives and waits for the machinery of the system to devour all things good and bad, for they feed from the trough of all destruction. They care not for whom the bell tolls.

And the tendrils that closed in from the many who watched in rapt speculation, certain of impending disaster but at the same time secretly hoping to be surprised.

There are many others, some of them significantly distinctive in their own right, many more mere variations on one theme or another. But these were the ones that caught my mind.

An unsettling way to look at it, don't you think?

15: Not at all. Just one way among many. I leave it to others to assign desirability and horror to events and outcomes. As I said, I'm just there to judge the show.

Ah, well.... And how did you judge it? Guilty or innocent?

15: Why, neither, of course. I told you, I was judging the entire performance. Each role in relationship to all the others, each event and scene in the context of the whole, the whole itself.

Okay, I guess I need you to explain your approach to me a little better.

15: Certainly. Think of it as patterns. Events take place within patterns. Just like a movie and what is known as the screenwriter's paradigm. A few minutes to establish the context of the film, a plot twist that creates the mystery, a buildup to breakpoint, the final spin, and resolution. Or not resolution. Maybe a hanger ending instead.

Okay. And you're looking for what?

15: Conformity. Exceptions. Perfection in the details: did things go as they usually go, or did they surprise me.

And did you see anything notable?

15:Yes, I saw something rather curious. Surprising in one way but not another, but definitely curious.

I saw a scene within a scene, one that I would not normally expect to be there. A blatant alteration in the flow of things, a huge exception to the expected pattern.

It was during the defense's presentation of its case. It has to do with an idea known as the theory of the case.

The theory of the case?

15: Right. The presumption or explanation as to why whatever happened, happened. In this case, why the defendant chose the course he chose.

Well, that seems rather simple, doesn't it? He studied the law as far as he could, and he reviewed the work of others in the same questions, and he came to the conclusion that he was not required to do certain things, so he quit doing them. And he took a few corrective actions to try to remedy the mistake he had previously made in doing that which was not required to do. And then he got dragged into court to be destroyed because he followed his impression of the law. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

15: Yup. But for the exception, that was it. Man studies law, finds it doesn't say what he'd been told, acts on his new understanding, and the vested interests behind the fraud come after him with everything they have. It was already set up to be intense, deliciously so, no matter the outcome. And the outcome was indeed a variable, so I found the whole thing to be potentially quite tasty.

Quite frankly, though, I didn't expect to find a cherry right in the middle of the pie.

I'm not following you. Cherry? What about the theory of the case?

15: Why, don't you see? That's the point!

The defense put on testimony from a couple of recognized alternative authorities in the field of law in question, and they very credibly accounted for how a person like the defendant could get to where he said he was, and thus do what he did.

And the jury was eating it up. The day before, during the prosecution's expert-witness presentation, they were practically bored to tears. But now, they were interested. Probably because they were being asked to consider the astounding. And I found that delightfully intense. You know, for a moment there I actually thought the judge was interested too.

Yes, I had the same impression. So then why the nasty verdict today?

15: Hey, I'm not telepathic. You'll have to ask them that. I can only tell you that from what I saw, there was little cause for surprise. I only stuck around to feed off the emotion that was inevitable either way. I've seen the way of this trial many times before, and I knew it probably wouldn't turn out well.

Before? When?

15: Too many times to count, but not so often so blatant and right under the nose of an esteemed defense attorney. Usually it's a mistake made out of inexperience, or desperation or something.

All right, I'll bite. What was it? Was there something wrong with the theory of the case?

15: Oh, not, nothing like that. It was fine as far as it went. It was the diversion that put the different cake under the icing we all received later.

What diversion?

15: Well, after the two legal guys testified, and did a pretty good job of fleshing out the theory of the case, this other guy came up and testified about something completely different. Said that if you didn't like what the government was doing and it ignored your objections, Congress said a long time ago that you should not pay them the taxes they want until they listen to your complaints.

So?

15: So? SO??! So that's a completely different theory of the case! Here on the one hand we have a guy who simply isn't doing what he isn't required to do, and that all makes sense, but then on the other hand you're told that he doesn't have to do it even if he is supposed to do it, if he doesn't like this or that.

So the jury now must try to reconcile these conflicting theories of the case. But they can't do it. They can't because they can't really follow either one back to a foundation. The judge won't help them out on the law. So they're left to try to figure it out. But they can't. They're confused.

I gotta tell you, I don't even need dessert, it was so intense in there. You would not believe the fighting! They never got it straightened out. They ended up even more confused at the end than when they went in. So they gave up.

They had a guy who had almost convinced them that he'd acted on a decision based in the law. And then they had to consider that No, it was because he was a protester or something. So they were left with the nagging possibility that the guy didn't do it for the reasons he'd said, but for some other more political reason.

If they saw doubt, it was in the presentation of the defense. Their predictable response? If the defense doesn't know why he did what he did, how should we?

And why two different and conflicting theories of the case? Don't we automatically think someone is being dishonest when he can't keep his story straight?

So the stage was set for them to go the other way: Guilty by confusion.

Whoa! You're saying that the defense shot itself in the foot?

15: I'm not saying anything for sure. But look at the progression of events. The jury is bored with the prosecution, the jury is interested in the defense, the jury is confused. You could see it in some of their faces as the last man's testimony progressed.

All I know is that when you present conflicting theories of a case, you are very likely to lose.

No surprise there.

Well, Juror 15, we thank you for taking the time to talk with us. Not quite what we expected to hear....

15: It never is, is it?