The company I work for is a digital marketing advertising agency. Today, we released some data about the costs of buying advertising on search engines such as Google, Yahoo and MSN. Overall prices for advertisers decreased 8.6% in Q2.
Full story: Fathom Online Reports Q2 Decrease in Average Bid for Search Marketing Keywords
Search Marin Modus Vivendi
Jul 18, 2006
Jul 14, 2006
Verdict: Guilty or Not Guilty?
In the end, we unanimously agreed that the defendant was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. The evidence was limited but we had enough to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. Interestingly, either lawyer could have won the case if the sum of all evidence had been different.
As I mentioned, the prosecution submitted the deputy's sketch of the scene to demonstrate what had happened. This tool was very useful for the jury to understand the situation and I'm sure it was required in order for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof; however, the sketch was poorly drawn and if there had been no other evidence submitted, we would have acquitted the defendant. The reason that the drawing was poorly drawn was that the scaling was off making the intersection look much larger than it really was. A large intersection would have supported the story of the defendant (who was accused of driving on the wrong side of the road) because he stated that he did take a wide turn, but not into the wrong side of the road.
On the other hand, the defense submitted photos of the scene. I am really not sure why because the photos served to give the jury a bearing on how small the intersection was and helped us know that the defendant's version of the story was not plausible. The defendant also claimed that words were exchanged between he and the victim three car lengths back from the intersection, not in the middle of the intersection as the prosecution claimed. Unfortunately, given the pictures, the deputy would not have been able to witness any of the interaction if it occurred where the defendant claimed.
If you recall, the jury focused on the points of agreement between the two witnesses and used to evidence to parse out the points of disagreement. Through this process, we were able to, without any reasonable doubt, agree that the defendant's version of the events were not true and that he was guilty. The aforementioned example was discovered later in the process, but what really kicked us in gear was our examination of the evidence for the second part of the indictment - driving without a valid license.
On the stand, the witness stated that he did not know that his license was not valid. For the jury to convict, the criteria would need to be: a. the defendant drove a vehicle without a license, and b. the defendant knew he did not have a license. Can you see the catch 22 here? To ensure an acquittal, the defendant only needs to state that he or she did not know the license was not valid and that is exactly what this defendant did.
During the trial, the prosecutor entered a seemingly innocuous DMV document into evidence. I looked at it but did not see anything of interest. However, when I examined the DMV document during deliberations, I found the four things that the prosecution wanted me to see: 1. That the defendant's license had been revoked, 2. the defendant had been told at the scene of an accident by a police officer that his license had been revoked, 3. the license had been revoked only two weeks prior to the crime he was on trial for, and 4. the defendant had been in several other accidents within the year. These facts all added up to refute the testimony of the witness that he "did not know" his license was invalid. It was also a very clever way for the prosecutor to enter evidence of other unrelated events (the accidents) to demonstrate a track record.
At this point, we realized that it was time to start analyzing the facts and move way from the opinions. We realized we had enough information to make a decision and that we simply needed a process to vet that information. As I wrote earlier in this post and in a previous post, we decided that we could focus on the points in common and use the evidence, like the DMV documents, to fill in the gaps - - even if the evidence had been submitted for a different purpose.
Through this process, we feel justice was served and we made the right decision. I do not know what the exact sentence was for the defendant but I do believe that he received some jail time, fines, and community service.
As I mentioned, the prosecution submitted the deputy's sketch of the scene to demonstrate what had happened. This tool was very useful for the jury to understand the situation and I'm sure it was required in order for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof; however, the sketch was poorly drawn and if there had been no other evidence submitted, we would have acquitted the defendant. The reason that the drawing was poorly drawn was that the scaling was off making the intersection look much larger than it really was. A large intersection would have supported the story of the defendant (who was accused of driving on the wrong side of the road) because he stated that he did take a wide turn, but not into the wrong side of the road.
On the other hand, the defense submitted photos of the scene. I am really not sure why because the photos served to give the jury a bearing on how small the intersection was and helped us know that the defendant's version of the story was not plausible. The defendant also claimed that words were exchanged between he and the victim three car lengths back from the intersection, not in the middle of the intersection as the prosecution claimed. Unfortunately, given the pictures, the deputy would not have been able to witness any of the interaction if it occurred where the defendant claimed.
If you recall, the jury focused on the points of agreement between the two witnesses and used to evidence to parse out the points of disagreement. Through this process, we were able to, without any reasonable doubt, agree that the defendant's version of the events were not true and that he was guilty. The aforementioned example was discovered later in the process, but what really kicked us in gear was our examination of the evidence for the second part of the indictment - driving without a valid license.
On the stand, the witness stated that he did not know that his license was not valid. For the jury to convict, the criteria would need to be: a. the defendant drove a vehicle without a license, and b. the defendant knew he did not have a license. Can you see the catch 22 here? To ensure an acquittal, the defendant only needs to state that he or she did not know the license was not valid and that is exactly what this defendant did.
During the trial, the prosecutor entered a seemingly innocuous DMV document into evidence. I looked at it but did not see anything of interest. However, when I examined the DMV document during deliberations, I found the four things that the prosecution wanted me to see: 1. That the defendant's license had been revoked, 2. the defendant had been told at the scene of an accident by a police officer that his license had been revoked, 3. the license had been revoked only two weeks prior to the crime he was on trial for, and 4. the defendant had been in several other accidents within the year. These facts all added up to refute the testimony of the witness that he "did not know" his license was invalid. It was also a very clever way for the prosecutor to enter evidence of other unrelated events (the accidents) to demonstrate a track record.
At this point, we realized that it was time to start analyzing the facts and move way from the opinions. We realized we had enough information to make a decision and that we simply needed a process to vet that information. As I wrote earlier in this post and in a previous post, we decided that we could focus on the points in common and use the evidence, like the DMV documents, to fill in the gaps - - even if the evidence had been submitted for a different purpose.
Through this process, we feel justice was served and we made the right decision. I do not know what the exact sentence was for the defendant but I do believe that he received some jail time, fines, and community service.
Jul 6, 2006
Do witnesses lie in court?
Courts are interesting because lieing is something that is expected to occur. As part of the jury instructions, we were advised on how to evaluate the testimony of the witnesses. Essentially the testimony could be believed, not believed, or only partly believed. I found this extremely interesting because we all have the expectation that people should be compelled to tell the truth through oath or perjury charges.
We were encouraged not to bring our presumptions into the court room, but that can be difficult. There were people who drive the intersection in question every day and wanted to bring their own analysis into the discussion. There was one who assumed that the accused was a drug addict because they had a brother in a similar situation. One person assumed that the police officer, a new member of the force, had a lot to gain by getting a conviction on his record while another thought that because the Marin County's Sherriff's department rarely cites traffic violations, it would be ridiculous for the deputy to lie. The point is that we have no idea of whether someone is lieing or not. We can never know unless we catch them in a blatant lie on the witness stand.
In our case, there was very little definitive evidence for either party. The accussed and the police officer were the only witnesses. The evidence offered to the jury for review was a map of the alleged crime scene (from prosecution), pictures of the alleged crime scene (from defense), and DMV documents (from prosecution).
We struggled in the jury room debating the nature of "who to believe" because we thought the case was about which story would we believe. Over time, we began to realize that it would be too difficult to find out who was more believable from the testimony that we received. Instead, we began to assemble the parts of both witnesses stories that were in alignment. Through this process, we were actually able to gain a clearer picture of what occurred because we were able to use the consistencies in testimony to determine what definitely occured while analyzing the evidence provided to fill in the gaps.
Analysis of the facts brought the group into alignment because we based decisions on the facts, no matter how hard it was to put aside our assumptions. We did a good job in the analysis and ultimately made the right decision using both the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence presented.
We were encouraged not to bring our presumptions into the court room, but that can be difficult. There were people who drive the intersection in question every day and wanted to bring their own analysis into the discussion. There was one who assumed that the accused was a drug addict because they had a brother in a similar situation. One person assumed that the police officer, a new member of the force, had a lot to gain by getting a conviction on his record while another thought that because the Marin County's Sherriff's department rarely cites traffic violations, it would be ridiculous for the deputy to lie. The point is that we have no idea of whether someone is lieing or not. We can never know unless we catch them in a blatant lie on the witness stand.
In our case, there was very little definitive evidence for either party. The accussed and the police officer were the only witnesses. The evidence offered to the jury for review was a map of the alleged crime scene (from prosecution), pictures of the alleged crime scene (from defense), and DMV documents (from prosecution).
We struggled in the jury room debating the nature of "who to believe" because we thought the case was about which story would we believe. Over time, we began to realize that it would be too difficult to find out who was more believable from the testimony that we received. Instead, we began to assemble the parts of both witnesses stories that were in alignment. Through this process, we were actually able to gain a clearer picture of what occurred because we were able to use the consistencies in testimony to determine what definitely occured while analyzing the evidence provided to fill in the gaps.
Analysis of the facts brought the group into alignment because we based decisions on the facts, no matter how hard it was to put aside our assumptions. We did a good job in the analysis and ultimately made the right decision using both the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence presented.
Jul 5, 2006
Jury Deliberations: Discussion or Decision?
When we entered the jury room to begin deliberations, I could tell that the room contained nervous energy. Questions running through people's mind might have been: "Will the other's agree with me?" "How long might we be in here?" "How does this work?"
When our jury entered the room, they did not provide any further instructions. They did not stand by to help facilitate the discussion. The bailiff simply locked the door, asked us to choose a foreperson, and let us know where the buzzer was if we needed something. When the door closed, we were on our own. At first I thought it might take some time to find a foreperson, but we ended up having some nominations right away and voted very quickly. I discovered that the foreperson plays a crucial role in facilitation.
How the foreperson organizes deliberations can determine the length of deliberations or in the extreme case, mean the difference in a hung jury or a decision. I was not the foreperson on our jury and I believe that our foreperson did a fine job considering he, like us all, has probably not had training in being a foreperson. But with this experience now, I believe that anyone can be a foreperson - it does not require special training.
To me, the job of the foreperson is to fairly faciliate a decision that meets the requirements of the law. In our case, our foreperson and the jury did a great job facilitating discussion and hearing everyone out, but we did not set out a process by which we could return a Guilty or Not Guilty Verdict. Fairly facilitating a decision is the goal. In this process, facilitating discussion and ensuring everyone is heard is very important, but not the end goal.
If I were to be able to do this trial again, and if I were to be elected the foreperson, I would structure the discussion for this case by writing each of the 7 traffic violations on the chalkboard with one column next to it. In the column, we would note whether the jury believed that the defendant was Not Guilty or Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. I then would have asked the jury to decide on each of the traffic violations. If all were not guilty, then we would have no need to decide on the "wanton disregard" requirement. If there were any where we all agreed, that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then we would discuss if the defenedent was also guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of wanton disregard. I believe if we had followed this process, we would have come to a decision in 2 to 3 hours instead of 5 1/2 hours. I did not think about this during that time and believe we delivered a verdict as rapidly as we could have. But this learning is very interesting and while I doubt it would be legal, it would be great if part of the jury instructions included the point that the foreperson should fairly facilitate a decision that meets the requirements of the law.
On the other hand, the beauty of the jury system is that 12 average people can come together and make decisions about the facts and evidence presented without being encumbered by pre-determined processes.
When our jury entered the room, they did not provide any further instructions. They did not stand by to help facilitate the discussion. The bailiff simply locked the door, asked us to choose a foreperson, and let us know where the buzzer was if we needed something. When the door closed, we were on our own. At first I thought it might take some time to find a foreperson, but we ended up having some nominations right away and voted very quickly. I discovered that the foreperson plays a crucial role in facilitation.
How the foreperson organizes deliberations can determine the length of deliberations or in the extreme case, mean the difference in a hung jury or a decision. I was not the foreperson on our jury and I believe that our foreperson did a fine job considering he, like us all, has probably not had training in being a foreperson. But with this experience now, I believe that anyone can be a foreperson - it does not require special training.
To me, the job of the foreperson is to fairly faciliate a decision that meets the requirements of the law. In our case, our foreperson and the jury did a great job facilitating discussion and hearing everyone out, but we did not set out a process by which we could return a Guilty or Not Guilty Verdict. Fairly facilitating a decision is the goal. In this process, facilitating discussion and ensuring everyone is heard is very important, but not the end goal.
If I were to be able to do this trial again, and if I were to be elected the foreperson, I would structure the discussion for this case by writing each of the 7 traffic violations on the chalkboard with one column next to it. In the column, we would note whether the jury believed that the defendant was Not Guilty or Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. I then would have asked the jury to decide on each of the traffic violations. If all were not guilty, then we would have no need to decide on the "wanton disregard" requirement. If there were any where we all agreed, that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then we would discuss if the defenedent was also guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of wanton disregard. I believe if we had followed this process, we would have come to a decision in 2 to 3 hours instead of 5 1/2 hours. I did not think about this during that time and believe we delivered a verdict as rapidly as we could have. But this learning is very interesting and while I doubt it would be legal, it would be great if part of the jury instructions included the point that the foreperson should fairly facilitate a decision that meets the requirements of the law.
On the other hand, the beauty of the jury system is that 12 average people can come together and make decisions about the facts and evidence presented without being encumbered by pre-determined processes.
Jul 3, 2006
Jury Instructions
The instructions to the jury were crucial to determining a verdict - and which verdict. The instructions do not detail procedures for how deliberations should be managed. The jury instructions instruct the jury on what the burden of proof is for the People to convict the accused. How these instructions are worded can mean the difference between a Guilty and Not Guilty verdict.
I suspect that a jury trial is rarely so cut and dry that the jury can, without specific instruction about the law, determine a verdict. In our case, Reckless Driving, there were several requirements that needed to be met to reach a Guilty verdict. Each requirement needed to have unanimous agreement from the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In the words of the Criminal Defender, Mr Shroettner, you can not think that "he probably did it" and deliver a Guilty verdict.
There were four requirements to prove the first count of the indictment: 1. The defendant was driving a vehicle, 2. the defendant was driving the vehicle on a highway (legal word for road), 3. the defendant violated a traffic law or laws (paraphrased), 4. the defendant, in the course of violating a traffic law or laws, had a wanton disregard for the safety of people or property. While this sounds straight forward so far, the other aspect to consider was that there were seven traffic laws cited.
To reach a decision, the jury had to also unanimously agree on which traffic law was violated and if the defendant showed wanton disregard on that particular violation. This can be examined for fairness in a couple of ways. First, the Sheriff's Deputy needed at least three traffic violations within the same act to cite the driver for reckless driving, but remember, the jury only needed to decide on one of the same 7 - this is such an interesting discrepancy.
The other interesting part is that whereas 84 votes were needed to delvier a verdict of Not Guilty (12 voters agreeing on Not Guilty for 7 violations), only 14 votes were required to deliver a verdict of Guilty (12 voters agreeing on 1 violation and that the driver showed wanton disregard). So whereas the accused is presumed innocent until pro ven guilty, there was a a longer road to a not guilty verdict than to a not guilty verdict. I was quite literally at odds with this circumstance and I describe why later on in my section on the verdict.
I suspect that a jury trial is rarely so cut and dry that the jury can, without specific instruction about the law, determine a verdict. In our case, Reckless Driving, there were several requirements that needed to be met to reach a Guilty verdict. Each requirement needed to have unanimous agreement from the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In the words of the Criminal Defender, Mr Shroettner, you can not think that "he probably did it" and deliver a Guilty verdict.
There were four requirements to prove the first count of the indictment: 1. The defendant was driving a vehicle, 2. the defendant was driving the vehicle on a highway (legal word for road), 3. the defendant violated a traffic law or laws (paraphrased), 4. the defendant, in the course of violating a traffic law or laws, had a wanton disregard for the safety of people or property. While this sounds straight forward so far, the other aspect to consider was that there were seven traffic laws cited.
To reach a decision, the jury had to also unanimously agree on which traffic law was violated and if the defendant showed wanton disregard on that particular violation. This can be examined for fairness in a couple of ways. First, the Sheriff's Deputy needed at least three traffic violations within the same act to cite the driver for reckless driving, but remember, the jury only needed to decide on one of the same 7 - this is such an interesting discrepancy.
The other interesting part is that whereas 84 votes were needed to delvier a verdict of Not Guilty (12 voters agreeing on Not Guilty for 7 violations), only 14 votes were required to deliver a verdict of Guilty (12 voters agreeing on 1 violation and that the driver showed wanton disregard). So whereas the accused is presumed innocent until pro ven guilty, there was a a longer road to a not guilty verdict than to a not guilty verdict. I was quite literally at odds with this circumstance and I describe why later on in my section on the verdict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
