Juror's Letter Released Subsequent to Ofc. Betty Shelby's Acquittal

[walker2713]

Here's a letter apparently filed with the court by a juror, representing the views of the mind of the jury in the case. They were trying to placate the media's unrelenting push for interviews with them, while they struggled to maintain their anonymity and privacy.

It explains the thinking behind the acquittal, but also goes beyond that to pass judgment on whether she was "blameless" or not, and whether or not she should continue in LE. That strikes me as outside the jury's purview, and not a helpful development. But, it is what it is.


http://www.fox23.com/news/juror-shar...rial/524388641

[hufnagel]

Discounting the commentary regarding the possible use of a Tazer (sounds like the old "shoot 'em in the leg!" argument) the letter as a whole seems to show a jury pool that did its job well. The second to last paragraph, to me, was quite telling that the jury did their job well, as the wife's recounting of her recent jury duty experience mirrors the same sentiments.

[RoyGBiv]

Thanks for sharing that.

[rsa-otc]

Well that letter is far different in my mind than outlined in the Juror interview that I saw earlier, link below. How anyone could decide from the letter that the prosecutor did a shoddy job or that Shelby shouldn't be a patrol officer is beyond me.

Once again we can't rely on reports from either the family or news since they insisted that the window was closed yet the jury after watching the best the prosecution could present decided that the window was actually open.

While I take Shelby at her word that she was scared as never before in her career (I came to that conclusion myself early on listening to her on the video) she did as she was trained.

I wish Shelby the best of luck in the future but feel like Darren Wilson her Law Enforcement career with that department and probably in that state is probably over. The BLM & public will see to that.

https://www.readfrontier.org/stories...-never-patrol/

[voodoo_man]

The blame for Officer Shelby's inaction, action or otherwise is solely laid on the shoulders of the brass in my opinion. They have the duty to train their officers to a certain degree of competency and they alone are responsible for what occurred. Of course Shelby pulled the trigger, likely the first time she has ever pulled a trigger in anger or outside of a square range training session.

The whole thing about the taser, while it may look like something which could and or should be applied there are so many pitfalls to that type of argument.

Lastly, the media lied through their teeth, that is the #1 issue here. They purposefully and intentionally lied to make it seem like a white officer was racist and shot a black man because he was black. It is good that the jury saw through that quickly and made up their minds within the confines of the law.

I just want to mention that the jury letter did not bring up the guy's blood drug content. It seems he had a good amount of drugs in his system and his actions would have been extremely erratic.

[walker2713]

The blame for Officer Shelby's inaction, action or otherwise is solely laid on the shoulders of the brass in my opinion. They have the duty to train their officers to a certain degree of competency and they alone are responsible for what occurred. Of course Shelby pulled the trigger, likely the first time she has ever pulled a trigger in anger or outside of a square range training session.

The whole thing about the taser, while it may look like something which could and or should be applied there are so many pitfalls to that type of argument.

Lastly, the media lied through their teeth, that is the #1 issue here. They purposefully and intentionally lied to make it seem like a white officer was racist and shot a black man because he was black. It is good that the jury saw through that quickly and made up their minds within the confines of the law.

I just want to mention that the jury letter did not bring up the guy's blood drug content. It seems he had a good amount of drugs in his system and his actions would have been extremely erratic.

Not positive, but my recollection is that it was a magnum load of PCP?

[LockedBreech]

Honestly, the jury letter might not be perfect, but I would have killed for a jury that understood and obeyed burden of proof / the elements / the letter of the law like that when I was prosecuting.

My juries were generally big fans of listening politely and then making their minds up on something totally off the wall.

Example: I tried a battery case in which one of my deputies was working private security, a guy got rowdy, my deputy showed his badge, the guy still headbutted him.

I proved my case far, far beyond a reasonable doubt. The guy didn't even really deny it.

My jury told me after the case that they acquitted him because my deputy's story matched another deputy's story too well and they thought the deputies colluded. I politely nodded while screaming inside because 1.) my deputy had done federal undercover work for massive felony indictments before and would have zero career or professional reason to falsify testimony, plus he has major integrity in my personal knowledge of him, and 2.) ...there was literally zero anything in the case to suggest that. I just missed an anti-cop dude in my jury selection.

TL;DR they editorialized a bit but at least they followed the law as written.

[blues]

Honestly, the jury letter might not be perfect, but I would have killed for a jury that understood and obeyed burden of proof / the elements / the letter of the law like that when I was prosecuting.

Pretty much all you can ask and hope for.

It's the defense's job to find those susceptible to being swayed whether through smoke and mirrors, hyperbole or being sold a bill of goods. (Though I've met a few, rare defense attorneys who actually stayed to, presented and cross examined on the facts. This, however, was the exception rather than the rule.)

[AMC]

An increasing problem for our society, in my experience, is that a majority of our citizens today have no idea what "the law" actually is. By this I mean not only are they ignorant of what the law says, they are clueless as to what constitutes "law", as in statutory law. I encounter more adult "citizens" every day who believe that their emotional opinion should be the driver behind public policy or police actions. The other day I was called to the scene of a traffic dispute, in which one party mistakenly believed they had witnessed a hit&run of a parked car. They followed the other car for a few blocks and when the individual pulled over, the "witness" pulled up, rolled down their window, and told them they had struck a parked car and should go back and leave a note. The driver and their partner became enraged and began following the "witness" all around the neighborhood, until the witness pulled into a Fire Station. The Fire guys then called us. We examined the cars involved, found no damage, and tried explaining that this was just a mistake of the facts, but the two in the second car would have none of it, and demanded action over the first parties "threats" to them. The "threat" apparently was that the witness followed them, and told them they had hit a car....which made them feel "threatened". I explained the elements of Sec. 422 of the Ca. Penal Code......but was told "That's just your opinion. Ours is different, so we demand action." No amount of reason can break through when the other party has a fundamentally different view of reality.

[blues]

An increasing problem for our society, in my experience, is that a majority of our citizens today have no idea what "the law" actually is. By this I mean not only are they ignorant of what the law says, they are clueless as to what constitutes "law", as in statutory law...

Exacerbated by jurors who will not follow instructions provided by the judge as to the elements of the law and what is required to meet the threshold.

It's one thing to debate what constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a whole other thing to willfully ignore the law and the instructions of the court (as we have seen too many times now).