The Juror

OK. This is kind of fucked up, but it caught up in my mind, and I just couldn't get rid of it. With that said, here is another perspective on the BTB scene. This is a rather short one, and there really isn't any comprehensive conclusion to it. It's just another brain fart from me.

The Juror:

Seriously? You will have to excuse my ignorance here, but I had always been under the impression that lawyers were supposed to be smart. Recent events, however, caused me to seriously reconsider that assumption. OK, to be fair, it wasn't really the defense attorney; it was the prosecution attorney that was just plain beyond stupid. I mean, don't they do background checks on the jury pool anymore?

OK, so I got a jury summons. Unlike the majority of the free citizens of this great country, I consider it to be my public duty. Think about it. If you are accused of a crime (especially if you are actually innocent) wouldn't you rather have the jury filled with people that took their responsibility seriously? Also, we live in the greatest country in history. Our Constitution and system of Democratic Republic gives us unprecedented freedoms that no other country has ever had before. We have more rights and freedoms than any other country on the planet. Yes, jury duty is a pain in the ass, but it is a small price to pay for what we have. One other note here. The company I work for (as with a lot of other companies in this country) pays me my full wage while I am on the jury. They also see it as a public obligation.

So, why do I think that the prosecuting attorney is an idiot? Simple. Three years ago, I went through a contentious divorce. My wife cheated on me several times. Bing an engineer, I did my homework. The divorce laws in this state meant that I was fucked. Divorce was the fucking a man got when his wife fucked everyone else. Instead of hiring the meanest shark in the state, I hired the sleaziest lawyer on the planet. I managed to hide 90% of our assets. I did OK, but I was left with the knowledge that the divorce laws in this state were totally unfair.

So, what does that have to do with anything? Simple. I am currently sitting on a jury where a man is on trial for second degree murder of his cheating wife and her lover. The stupid prosecutor never did a full background check on me, so he had no idea that I would think that the defendant's actions were completely reasonable.

The prosecutor's opening arguments did hint at the defendant's shock at walking in on his wife engaged in sex with another man, but it was heavily laced with the fact that sex outside of marriage was not a crime. It also stated that physical retaliation WAS a crime. He was being charged with second degree murder since both is wife and her lover died at his hands.

First witness: the responding officer. He was dispatched to the scene because of a call from a neighbor that heard the gunshot. Arriving on the scene, he saw thee the male victim had his penis and testicles violently removed, Furthermore, the female victim had a significant area of the vagina and surrounding areas pretty much vaporized by the shotgun blast. The defendant was still there, and a 12-gauge shotgun was located beside the foot of the bed, He had been dispatched to the home because a neighbor heard the gunshot. The officer described the scene in graphic detail, and his report was entered into evidence. He described arriving at the scene to find the defendant calmly sitting in a chair at the foot of the bed with a shotgun leaning up against the wall.

The coroner was next on the stand. He described the wounds and the medical terminology. Basically. His genital region was vaporized. A 12-guage shotgun loaded with buckshot will do that. Her injuries were similar. Unfortunately for her, she was locked into coitus when his cock and balls were violently removed. The issue with her was that the soft tissue from his crotch did not in any way slow down the numerous projectiles escaped the barrel of the shotgun. They simply continued on unimpeded shredding her soft tissue and continued along their pre-arranged path. The result was that her vagina and surrounding tissue was basically shredded.

The EMT from the ambulance was next on the stand. He described the injuries and the heroic, but vain measures used to save the two victims. She was pronounced dead at the scene. He didn't survive the ambulance ride. There was just too much blood loss for both of them.

Other witnesses were called to clarify the events. Doctors, the medical examiner, etc. all explained in great detail how the two unfortunate victims died at the hands of the defendant. More witnesses were called to try and sway sympathy for the victims. Her parents, her sister, coworkers, etc. Sure, she cheated on her husband, but was that a death sentence?

Finally, the prosecution rested. The defense began their turn. That mainly consisted of friends and family telling what a loving and gentle man he was. Surely, this was an aberration brought on m by the stress of finding his loving wife in the arms and bed of another man. Of course, all this was simply meant to mitigate the disaster that was unfolding. Everyone knew that he was facing several years in prison. They were just trying now to reduce the charges.

"All for guilty? "The jury foreman asked. 11 hands went up. "Opposed?' MY hand snaked into the air. "AGAIN." He shouted 11 to one. "We can't convict without a unanimous decision."

"Seriously, man." He implored me for the thousandth time. "All the evidence shows that he murdered them. This is easy. He killed them, so why are you balking at him saying his price to society?"

"Extenuating circumstances." I replied.

"What extenuating circumstances?" They all ask.

"Well, he came home to find his wife fucking another guy on HIS bed in HIS own house. What was he supposed to do in that situation?"

"He should have just taken a few pictures or video, then used that evidence in a divorce." Of course, that answer came from one of the women.

"Oh. Great Idea." I replied. "Watch your wife fuck another guy, then go and get fucked by the court. He files for divorce, then loses most of his paycheck to her. She keeps the house, but he still has to pay the mortgage and bills while she moves her fuck buddy in She keeps fucking other guys, and he gets to pay her to do it. Have you ever heard that Jerry Reed song 'She Got the Gold Mine, and I Got the Shaft'? That's how divorces end up for the men. She can fuck the entire Giants football team in Times Square, and he will still end up paying for a house he can no longer live in, pay most of his paycheck in alimony lose half of his retirement, lose half of his life's savings. She lives like a queen while he is hoping that he has enough money for a couple cheap cans of tuna and some packets of Top Ramen to eat. The divorce laws in this state actually reward women for cheating on their husbands while punishing the innocent men for being faithful. If you take that to the logical conclusion, our own laws actually encourage his behaviour."

"But he murdered an innocent man." Another one piped up.

"Innocent? He knowingly seduced and fucked a married woman." I replied.

"Well, yes, but there is nothing illegal about that." This from a rather sleazy looking guy that I think was put on the jury because he was one of those lotharios that liked to seduce married women, thus would be prone to side with the prosecution.

"And that's part of the problem with the laws now. There is no deterrent for these sleazebags from fucking up a marriage. These dirtbags normally get away with it with no punishment at all in most cases. There is no deterrent to stop them from doing it over and over again."

"Look," the foreman stated. "I understand what you are trying to say, but we have to follow the law as it is currently. Under current law, what the two victims did was not illegal. Even if it had been, taking the law into your own hands is still illegal. They were not threatening him, so killing them was not legally justified."

"OH, but you are wrong on one fact. new do not necessarily need to follow the law here. The Constitution of the United States of America allows for something called Jury Nullification. That means that if a jury of his peers finds that the law is actually unjust in certain circumstances, it can override the law. Now, to save us all a lot of time and trouble, I will tell you that there is no way that I will vote to convict this man of any crime."

OK, so there was really no way that I could possibly sway 11 other people to my point of view. Seriously, several of them were women that liked the current laws and would possibly have been negatively affected by setting a precedent like this. Then, there was the sleazebag that didn't want to give any future husband any thoughts of retribution against him. Still, it became deadlocked at 9-3. I did manage to get two other guys on my side. The judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial. The defendant was set free, pending the DA refiling for another trial.