As I mentioned in “Comments” from the previous post last night, I heard from my juror friend, as he promised.
1st Degree Assault: Not guilty
2nd Degree Assault: Guilty
1st Degree Child Abuse: Guilty
2nd Degree Child Abuse: Guilty
Again, I wish I could have kept my notes, but as I recall, the 1st Degree Assault charge required intent to do bodily harm. That was the one charge I would have voted Not Guilty. So basically, the jury found exactly the way I would have made the case, going into deliberations.
“Defendant will apparently get about 25 years. Found out afterward that the defense lawyer tried to get her to take a plea deal to reduce the sentence by 7 years, but she wouldn’t do it.”
I asked when that deal was discussed; before the trial or afterwards. (As yet, he hasn’t returned the email.) Remember, the defense attorney asked me and Alternate #2 what we thought. I said guilty, she was on the fence. Maybe after talking to us, he realized that it might go badly for his client.
“The 3-year old (now 5) is doing well, being raised by his aunt, and is actually described as being very small and very sweet and kind.”
There goes the theory of the hulking 3-year old tossing the baby around like a sack of potatoes.
“The baby is not doing well. Needs medication to prevent as many as 30 seizures a day, is fully blind, and operates at the level of a 1 or 2-month old (at 2 years). Also, she nearly died again this past winter due to inability to regulate her body temperature.
The baby’s mother is missing and cannot be found. She was a drug user as well.”
That explains why she wasn’t at the trial. I thought at the time she’d want a front row seat. So sad about the baby. Poor kid never had a chance to have a normal life.
“The jury started out fairly divided, but soon moved toward the guilty verdicts you see above. There was one holdout. I believe she eventually just gave up. She was never really eager to share her own thoughts or feelings or reasoning during the process.”
That would have bugged the hell out of me… a lone holdout that won’t discuss her reasoning. That’s a cop-out and a failure to do one’s job as a jury. The whole process is about talking out differences and coming to a united decision.
He didn’t say how long it took them to deliberate. I asked, but as I said, he hasn’t responded as yet.
So that’s that. A trial in the books, another person in the jail and one more tragic crime victim is struggling to survive. Onward, we roll.
I promise the in my next post, I’ll be back to my customary level of mirth and whimsy.