The Scales of Our (In) Justice System

As the jury in the Derek Chauvin murder trial has moved into deliberations, I’m reminded of my own experience as a jurist on a murder trial in Chicago during May 2012. Although it was almost nine years ago to the day, the case and trial are so seared into my brain that I can remember many details as if it was yesterday. Mainly I remember the inhumanity and injustice for many of those involved. And the incredible weight and responsibility of being a jurist in the US legal system. Ironically this was a rare case with a positive outcome, so one can only imagine how a typical case would likely go down. I will explain further below.

The case was a first degree murder charge dating back to June 2009. The murder took place in a house in a tough neighborhood on the south side of Chicago, where two young men competing for the love interest of a young woman turned into a love triangle gone bad. The incident occurred at the women’s house in her bedroom, with her parents sleeping in the basement and her teenage sister sleeping in an adjacent room. In the bedroom were four people- the three mentioned above, plus a young man who was friends with one of the men involved. One man was Latino and the other three people were Black.   

Young man “A” was the current boyfriend, a tall strapping athletic figure who was playing basketball at a nearby park that evening. Young man “B” was the new love interest, a much smaller man with a troubled history. Young man “C” was a quiet, shy man who was a childhood friend of B. 

B and C were in the first floor living room with the woman when A knocked on the door. The woman told B and C to go up to her bedroom as she answered the door. A came into the house and was immediately suspicious as he recognized an unfamiliar car parked in front of the house, and ultimately made his way up to the woman’s bedroom with her following behind. There A encountered B and C. The woman tried to say that B and C were just “friends” but A wasn’t buying it. An argument between A and B quickly ensued, resulting in B pulling a gun on A and shooting him dead in cold blood. B & C then escaped through the woman’s bedroom window, jumped to the ground, made it to the car and then drove to a safe house for hiding.

The case was assigned to a White Chicago Police detective who worked major crimes in the area, including many involved with gangs and drugs. While several overtones of gang warfare permeated within this case, none of it was explicitly discussed nor would it have been admissible such as to not sway the jury. From my understanding during the trial a common approach for the police working crimes in this area was to charge as many people as possible, and then let the justice system sort out the details. Which is exactly what happened in this case.

After a few days of hiding out the suspects were eventually caught and arrested. Despite there being no physical evidence that C was involved in the murder, both B and C were eventually charged with first degree murder. Why you may ask? Reason was the state of Illinois does not allow for a lesser charge even if someone is suspected to be an accomplice, so the choice to be made for C was either to charge him with first degree murder or let him off with no charges. Ultimately the former was decided.

So once B and C were charged with first degree murder they were sent to Cook County Jail with no opportunity for bail. And that’s where both of them sat while the trial preparation took place. The initial game plan from the prosecutors was to try both men at this same time, but at some point later the decision was made (but not fully explained) to split the case into two cases and charge B and C separately with first degree murder. 

Fast forward to May 2012, with the initial trial for this murder being against C. I will skip over the painstaking Q&A process of jury selection, but as in the Derek Chauvin trial 14 members were selected- 12 jurists + 2 alternates, in case of any unexpected issues. I happened to have been Alternate #1.

Also as in the Chauvin case all 14 members were in the jury box throughout the trial, taking in all testimony and leaving as a group during any breaks. For anyone that’s never been on an extensive jury trial, one item that’s not highly covered in the media is that jurists are not allowed to discuss any aspect of the case with the other jurists until closing arguments are completed and the jury is sent off for deliberation. And of course no discussion with family, friends or co-workers. This is a difficult burden to bear, especially when a case extends beyond a business week, and a weekend (or more) is involved.

As the trial began the closest experience I had (and probably for many of you) was watching Law & Order and other similar TV shows. But not surprisingly the real world justice system is much different, and it doesn’t fit nicely into 50 minute run times. One of the biggest differences is the process of admitting evidence into the records- in TV shows this flies through as if you are driving on the Autobahn, while in reality it’s more like sitting through rush hour traffic, sometimes being behind a five car pile-up.

But in our case there was one major difference that I observed early on- the defense attorneys did not appear to be public defenders, which is what would be assigned to a defendant that could not afford the cost of private legal representation. There was a well-dressed lead attorney who appeared to be a seasoned experienced litigator, supported by three younger attorneys sitting along with defendant C.

The prosecution centered its case on people involved with the investigation- the police detective, the coroner, etc. Of all the testimonies, the one most shocking to me was the police detective who brought an attitude of near total disdain. He sat leaning back in his chair and answered all questions as either yes/no or basic short replies, couldn’t wait to get out of there as if he was baking bread at home that he didn’t want to burn. Someone was murdered in cold blood in a house with a teenager down the hall a room or two away, and the police detective acted like he was on a walk in the park. The utter lack of humanity demonstrated was appalling.    

After the prosecution rested and the defense began its case, it called up a number of witnesses, including ones providing expert testimony. As in the Chauvin trial the fees for hiring expert witnesses for the defense are costly and borne by the defendant, another reason these are unlikely to occur in similar trials. And then finally one piece of the puzzle for me was solved- the attorney called a law clerk from his firm to the stand and, while getting him admitted into the record, the clerk said he worked for Jenner & Block, a large Chicago law firm well known to many in the local business community.

Quickly it became apparent that Jenner & Block had taken this on as a pro-bono (charity) case to defend C. When a law firm of this stature takes on a pro-bono case it usually represents they believe a grave injustice has occurred, of which in turn they will defend their client vigorously and with all practical means at their disposal.

On day 5 of the trial an unusual event occurred which had a direct impact on me. While on a break during the trial a court officer came into the jury break room, called out the name of a woman on the jury, and told her to pack her things as she was being dismissed from the jury. No explanation was provided to us at the time, but her dismissal now meant that I was officially added to the jury pool while Alternate #2 remained as the sole alternate.

As in the Chauvin case the closing arguments concluded on a Monday, and the jury was given final instructions from the judge prior to deliberation. However our case was nearly an open and shut one because, after six days of detailed trial testimony, the prosecution did not provide a single shred of evidence that defendant C did anything to cause or assist in A’s murder. Did C make a bad choice in friends to hang out with? Check. Was he the victim of wrong place at the wrong time? Check check. Should he pay for those mistakes with a life sentence in prison? Heck no. The jury came to its consensus Not Guilty within a couple minutes, but we actually slightly delayed informing the judge to avoid appearing as if a proper deliberation did not take place. So after a short wait the foreman advised the judge we had made our decision, and we returned to the courtroom to render our Not Guilty verdict.

Defendant C was clearly ecstatic, as well as an elderly White couple that was in the gallery for every day of the trial. He was a free man and could go on with his life, a happy ending to say the least. So now the remaining questions for the jury were:

1)     Who was the elderly White couple?

2)     Why did the other jurist get dismissed?

3)     How did Jenner & Block choose to represent this case?

After providing our verdict we went back to the jury room to gather our belongings. While in the room the judge entered to thank us and ask if we had any questions, which resulted in the answer to 2). 

It turned out that on Day 4 of the trial the court reporter (i.e. the person who prepares the official court records) and said jurist knew each other socially, and somehow the judge was made aware of their relationship. And even though the sole job of the court reporter is to document the day’s trial activities as-is, the judge did not want to run the risk of a mistrial given how strong the defendant’s case was so she dismissed the juror out of an abundance of caution.

The judge then asked if we would be willing to meet with the defendant’s attorneys, so when we said yes they entered the jury room which led to answering 1) above.

We were informed by the lead counsel (who was a Partner) of a sad story, namely that the defendant was raised by a single mother who abandoned him at age 10, so he was a kid living on the streets then. Ultimately he was taken in by a foster home, and the elderly White couple became his foster parents. They raised the defendant on the north side of Chicago in a much safer environment, but unfortunately he began hanging out with some of his old neighborhood friends who were a bad influence on him.

We also were informed of some other good news for the defendant- on the day after his acquittal he had a full-time job waiting for him at an electronics recycling business! Shortly after the trial I found out that he obtained his GED diploma and became a successful college student while continuing to work full time. While I stopped tracking the defendant after that, I sure hope he was able to maintain his life arc.

So the only question we never got a completely clear answer to is 3), but one has to assume that the foster parents may have heard about Jenner & Block’s pro-bono work and did something to elevate awareness of Defendant C’s case such that they picked it up.

Now as I said at the beginning while the outcome of this case can largely be considered a success, there were several related dark moments that exposed the underbelly of our society and our policing and justice systems:

A)     The young man A was murdered in cold blood for no good reason (a love triangle gone bad and allegedly gang warfare, though never formally stated);

B)     Connecting the dots on what I mentioned earlier- the murder took place in June 2009 and the trial occurred in May 2012, which means Defendant C spent three years of his young adult life in prison on a charge that never should’ve been filed in the first place;

C)     The first degree murder charge against Defendant C was filed primarily the result of shoddy police work by a detective who had no interest in pursuing the truth, only in rounding up all suspects for expediency purposes; and

D)     Although Jenner & Block picked up this pro-bono case and threw the weight of its resources against it (I casually estimated a total six figure cost including research, case preparation, trial time and expert witness payments), by their own admission they referenced the acquittal as a “rare non-guilty verdict” so one has to wonder what would happen if a similar case was instead represented by a public defender with not nearly as many resources.

We now await the jury’s verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial, which to be clear is largely based on different circumstances than the case I participated in nine years ago. That said there is a sad and deeply disturbing through line between the two cases, namely the blatant disregard for human life that was exhibited by the police- in 2012 resulting in Defendant C spending three years in prison for an alleged crime he didn’t commit, and the unforgettable day of May 25, 2020 in which George Floyd needlessly had his life taken away.  

Say his name- George Floyd- whenever you can, and more importantly I encourage you, your friends and loved ones to rise up, challenge our systems of inequity and inequality, and fight to help make this country an equal and better place for all. Thank you.