(empo-jooryst) Speedy justice?

Remember way back on March 27, when I first discussed this case on this blog? This was one day after the jury had reached its verdict - for a crime that had been committed way back in November 2008.

Obviously it took years for this case to get to trial. But now that the defendant has been found guilty, how long will it take to sentence him?

As I mentioned in that first post, I have now been able to access the material on San Bernardino County's website - and that's where I'm now following the trial, since this case - even though it involved the shooting of a person - is not necessarily newsworthy enough to require day-to-day coverage in the Daily Bulletin or any other local paper.

So when I first accessed the online information on late March, the minutes said that sentencing would take place on May 3.

And if you go to the minutes for the May 3 sentencing, you find this:

HEARING CONTINUED TO 06/28/2013 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT R4.

Actually, in a way that was kind of nice for me, since I already knew that this series of posts would begin running on July 1. So, right before the series actually started to appear, I'd have all of the knowledge about the final sentence.

You can guess what happened on June 28:

SENTENCING SET FOR 08/02/2013 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT R4.

Obviously, whenever sentencing actually takes place, "credit for time served" will enter into the conversation.

(empo-jooryst) The players

In theory, those people who are charged with working for the court are united in their pursuit of justice.

Yeah, right.

While prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to behave honorably, they still have an incentive to best represent their "side." After all, their jobs are to convince a jury of guilt or innocence, and they want to marshal their best arguments in support of their case.

In my particular case, there was one prosecutor, Dan Ross, and two defense attorneys, Michael Becker and K.T. Tran. But before we look at them, let's look at the judge in this particular case.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of Stephan G. Saleson to a judgeship in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. Saleson, 56, of Riverside, has been a partner with Varner, Saleson & Brandt since 1997. Previously, he was an associate and then a partner with Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden from 1980 to 1997 and served as deputy district attorney for San Bernardino County from 1977 to 1980. Saleson earned a Juris Doctorate degree from Pepperdine University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Michigan State University. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Dennis G. Cole. Saleson is a Republican. The compensation for this position is $149,160.

During the trial, Judge Saleson did not discuss his previous experience as a deputy district attorney, nor did he express his political affiliations or his salary.

Moving on to Dan Ross, I only found a single news account about him, regarding a 2007 incident in which Ross, as deputy district attorney, had some harsh words for a defense attorney who tasered a client to try to prove a point about alleged police brutaility. I did find an avvo.com record that says that Ross has been licensed to practice law since 2005. As noted in the Daily Bulletin article, he was already with the San Bernardino County district attorney's office in 2007.

When researching Michael Becker, I discovered something interesting. At the time of the trial, I had no idea whether Becker was a public defender, or if he had been hired by someone to represent the defendant. Once I found out that Becker practiced law in Las Vegas, Nevada, it became apparent that the latter was probably the case. Interestingly enough, Becker was endorsed by a prosecutor:

Micheal and I faced each other on several matters when I was a Chief Deputy DA. He was always prepared, adept at spotting the issues, and committed to getting the best results for his client. In virtually every case his commitment paid off. I have seen Michael obtain Not Guilty verdicts and outright dismissals of major felony charges on more than one occasion. I have zero reservations in endorsing this lawyer.

Becker has more experience than Ross, having practiced in Nevada since 2004 and in California since 1993. His website is here. And here's a video:

Because Tran is a common name, I was unable to conclusively find the K.T. Tran that appeared in this case. While Becker was the lead defense attorney, Tran took the lead with certain witnesses.

Both the prosecutor and the defense lawyers took care to advocate their positions on the case. And since at the end of the day, the defendant was convicted of a lesser charge, I guess that you could claim that both did their jobs well.

(empo-jooryst) Another view of the analogy mashup

Several years ago, I read a book about the O.J. Simpson trial. That trial was a little different from my trial - in Simpson's case, the jurors were physically sequestered - but there were some parallels. The Simpson jury, like my own, was ordered to only consider evidence that was presented in court. Certain things were not revealed to the Simpson jury, or to my own. In my case, the attorneys and the judge would engage in whispered conversations at times, and at times the judge would ask the jury to leave the room.

So naturally, my view of what was going on was somewhat limited.

However, unbeknownst to me, a complete public record was being published of the proceedings in my jury room. Certain things were confidential at the time, but anyone who was interested in the trial could follow all of the proceedings online.

Take Tuesday, March 12. This was the day that they finally got around to interviewing me, and when I formally became an alternate juror. I've already told you my version of the story, but this is the official record that the court published of that day - something that I was unable to see until after the trial was over.

STEPHAN G SALESON, J-JUDGE

CLERK: RONNA HICKS

CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER: JQ-JULIE QUINTANILLA CSR# JQ-11309

BAILIFF M SHAW

-

APPEARANCES

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAN ROSS PRESENT.

ATTORNEY MICHAEL BECKER PRESENT.

ATTORNEY KT TRAN PRESENT.

DEFENDANT PRESENT IN CUSTODY.

-

PROCEEDINGS

ACTION CAME ON FOR JURY TRIAL-IN PROGRESS

-

4TH DAY OF TRIAL.

Let me interject something here. As far as I knew at the time, it was only the third day of trial. However, the jury wasn't even called into the room until the second day.

-

10:45

COURT CONVENES ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE.

PRESENT AND IN THEIR PROPER PLACES

- VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

-

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #41 EXCUSED BY PEOPLE'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #32 EXCUSED BY DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #36 EXCUSED BY DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

-

11:16

OFF THE RECORD, COURT AND COUNSEL AT BENCH.

I'm actually going to cut out a lot of the proceedings here. There were more off the record discussions, more jurors excused, a lunch break, and so forth. As Judge Saleson remarked, real court cases are not like TV.

Oh, and one other thing happened - noted in the record as "JURORS ADMONISHED." We were admonished a lot - basically reminding us not to research the case or discuss the case with anyone, including our fellow jurors. The last admonishment applied until (and, in my case, unless) we were in deliberations.

So let's pick it up at 1:51 pm - or, because the court uses military time, 13:51.

13:51

12 JURORS SWORN

-

OFF THE RECORD, COURT AND COUNSEL AT BENCH.

-

13:52

COURT RECONVENES, ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE PRESENT AND IN THEIR PROPER PLACES

VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #45 EXCUSED BY PEOPLE'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

-

VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

14:07

OFF THE RECORD, COURT AND COUNSEL AT BENCH.

-

14:08

COURT RECONVENES, ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE PRESENT AND IN THEIR PROPER PLACES

VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

14:16

12 JURORS AND 2 ALTERNATES ARE SWORN TO TRY THE CAUSE. THE NAMES OF THE SWORN JURORS AND ALTERNATES ARE SEALED UPON THE RECORDING OF THE VERDICT.

And that, in the eyes of the court, was the official account of the selection of alternate juror number two, including his analogy mashup joke. Exciting, huh?

Because the court had no idea when a panel of jurors and alternates would be sworn in, there was no attempt to start opening arguments on that day. But the charges against the defendant were officially read to us - after a time.

-

RECESS DECLARED 14:18

-

14:26

COURT RECONVENES, ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL JURORS AND ALTERNATE JURORS ARE PRESENT AND IN THEIR PLACES.

COURT READS THE INFORMATION

-

COURT PRE-INSTRUCTS THE JURY.

-

14:48

COURT IS ADJOURNED. JURORS ADMONISHED.

-

HEARINGS

JURY TRIAL (IN PROGRESS) CONTINUED TO 03/13/2013 AT 10:30 IN DEPARTMENT R4.

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO APPEAR ON HEARING DATE.

And the defendant did appear. Although he probably didn't have a lot of choice in the matter.

Either cars.com was hacked, or Samy Bouzaglo owns a used car dealer in Ontario

Many rating services allow, and actually encourage, business owners to respond to customer reviews. Often these responses take the tone of "We are sorry you were disappointed with our service." At other times, it probably would have been better if the business had not responded at all. I found the review below on a cars.com page.

(empo-jooryst) In which I make a false assumption

Eventually, the testimony ended, the closing arguments were heard, and twelve of the fourteen people sitting in the jury box were dismissed to begin deliberations.

The two alternate jurors remained for a few minutes. The judge thanked us for our service, but reminded us that we were not fully released from service until the jury reached (or didn't reach) a verdict. The judge had no way to predict how long this could take, since every jury is different. The process could take a few hours, or it could take weeks. Either way, someone at the court would call us to tell us what the verdict was.

That was on a Thursday afternoon.

On Thursday evening, I checked to see if the case was still listed on the criminal calendar for Friday. It was, indicating that the jury was probably still going to be deliberating on Friday.

Similarly, I checked the criminal calendar again on Sunday evening. The case was still listed for Monday.

On Monday morning, I received a call from the court. But it wasn't the call that I expected. The court representative stated that there may be an issue with one of the jurors, and that I may need to join the jury. If I had to do so, how soon could I get to the court in Rancho Cucamonga?

After I told him, I figured that this probably wouldn't affect me, since I was the second alternate and presumably wouldn't be needed unless two jurors dropped out.

Wrong, John. The court representative explained that if a juror did drop out, they would draw lots between the two alternate jurors to see which one would be added to the jury.

At this point, I had to start telling co-workers and various family members that I may be back on jury duty again. I would find out within the hour.

Just a half hour later, the court called again. I was instructed to go about my daily business, and that I would not be summoned to the court - that day.

That was on Monday. On Tuesday, I received a second call from the court. But this time, they had reached a verdict.

Yeah, we replaced the dead guy...but the replacement's a secret

Just last Tuesday, I wrote about Cory Briggs' latest organization, the Inland Oversight Committee, and the fact that the listed chairman of the committee, Ian Trowbridge, actually passed away several months ago.

Well, Briggs has returned to the news again. When I read the title of a recent Liset Marquez article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Lawsuit threatens formation of Ontario-Rancho Cucamonga tourism marketing district, I wondered if Briggs had something to do with it.

Turns out I was right. (Off-topic, this makes me feel better, because I was sure that Dwight Howard wouldn't make his free agency decision until after July 10. Turns out I was wrong about that. I think.)

The Ontario-based Inland Oversight Committee, in its suit, is asking that the district's formation be taken to the voters.

Cory Briggs, the group's attorney, filed the lawsuit in West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga on Monday....

So, considering that the Inland Oversight Committee web page currently lists three people in the organization - Briggs (no listed official role, but quoted in the press releases), Anthony Kim (legal adviser), and the aforementioned dead man (chairman), I wondered if Marquez was able to use her journalistic skills to figure out if anyone else was on the committee. But Marquez had no such luck:

Members of the group have asked to remain anonymous.

For a full account of the basis of Briggs' latest lawsuit, see the article.

Oh, and by the way, I found out more about Anthony Kim. According to LinkedIn, Kim is based in San Diego, and is an attorney with the Briggs Law Corporation. Presumably, as legal adviser to the Inland Oversight Committee, Kim is responsible for securing legal representation for the committee in its court cases. And so far, the lawyer that Kim has recommended is...Kim's own boss. And oddly enough, Kim does not appear on the list of attorneys for the Briggs Law Corporation, although his name does appear on this complaint, filed on behalf of the "Redlands Good Neighbor Coalition," and filed against Costco. No, I'm kidding, it's against Walmart.

So the Inland Oversight Committee site lists a dead man, and the Briggs Law Corporation website fails to list a current attorney - well, someone who was an attorney a few months ago. If you are a webmaster, please try to get a job with Briggs; he seems to be a little slow in updating his web sites.

P.S. The empo-jooryst series will resume on Monday.

(empo-jooryst) Some TMI about the hazards of jury duty

During a criminal trial, a jury is restricted to basing its decision on the evidence presented in court. Jury members cannot go and research the law on their own, research news accounts on their own, or consider anything outside of the courtroom.

In the case in March for which I was an alternate juror, the judge reminded us of this constantly. As far as I know, we all honored the judge's request - even when it caused us difficulties to do so.

One afternoon, after a nice lunch with two other jurors (followed by a post-lunch coffee), I arrived at the courtroom in time for the afternoon session. I wanted to stop by the restroom, but didn't have a chance before we were called into the courtroom.

After some testimony, the prosecution was asked to call its next witness. At this point the prosecution said, as delicately as possible, that the witness may be in the restroom. The judge then ordered a brief break in which the jurors were asked to exit the courtroom, and were (as usual) reminded not to discuss the case with anybody.

This may have been a wonderful opportunity to take care of my personal needs, but there was only a single restroom on the floor - and a witness may have been in there! So I decided to wait a while.

Eventually the witness was located, testimony continued, and eventually we got to another break. The jury filed out (after hearing the judge's usual admonition) - and the spectators filed out also. I did not know who the spectators were, but they appeared to have some interest in the case. Were they friends or family of the defendant? I didn't know. Were they friends or family of the alleged victim of the crime? I did not know.

What I did know was that several male spectators took the opportunity of the courtroom break to head to - you guessed it, the restroom.

The story has a happy ending - eventually I took care of my own needs, and was not a victim of jury tampering when I did so.

(empo-jooryst) Is my dog competent to stand trial?

When you spend several days at a trial, things start to rub off on you.

It was the Saturday after the trial began, or a little over a week after jury selection began. I was engaged in important duties that had nothing to do with my jury assignment, or with my regular job. Specifically, I was in my backyard, picking up dog poop.

Frankly, I would rather have been back in voir dire.

As I was picking up after my dog, I was talking to her. Or rather, we were talking to each other. This is what she was saying:

BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

Meanwhile, I found myself saying this to her:

Your job is to keep cats out of the backyard. But here in my hand, I have evidence that shows that you have not done this! Allow me to introduce Exhibit 1, this piece of cat poop...

I wonder if our prosecuting attorney says things like that to his dog.

I just hope that this doesn't mean that poop will become a major part of this case. Heck, I already cut my hair and then discovered a few hours later that the alleged crime took place near a barbershop. I shudder to think of what might happen next.

A Cory Briggs interest group has a real person connected with it - well, sort of

Sorry to interrupt my coverage of my jury service three months ago, but I was checking my analytics and saw an uptick in people reading articles about Cory Briggs. Since the Ontario Walmart appears to be on schedule for a fall 2013 opening, I figured that perhaps Briggs was being active in some other city. I was correct; I found this article from early June:

CHINO -- A possible lawsuit has Mayor Dennis Yates concerned it will scare away potential developers from building in his city and the Inland Empire.

On Tuesday, the attorney for Inland Oversight Committee threatened to take the city to court if the council didn't reverse the Planning Commission's action approving a million-square-foot industrial development for Watson Land Co.

Attorney Cory Briggs filed an appeal with city alleging the project did not receive the proper environmental review and the city did not properly notify the public about the Planning Commission's approval a month and a half ago.

So this organization is called the "Inland Oversight Committee." We've been down this road before, with the Ontario Mountain Village Association, the Blythe Citizens for Smart Growth, the Menifee Citizens for Smart Growth, and the Murrietans for Smart Growth. So I suspected that the Inland Oversight Committee was just something that Briggs had completely dreamed up, and that the committee itself had one member, Briggs.

Well, in my typical Jim Bakker fashion, I was wrong. Not only does the Inland Oversight Committee have a website, it actually has real people associated with it. But first, let's see that the Inland Oversight Committee does that is different from the other organizations that I have named:

IOC's specific purpose is to educate members of the public about their rights to transparent, accountable, and responsible decision-making by the government, as well as their rights to the fair, equal, and lawful treatment by the government when they interact with government agencies and representatives. Pursuing this purpose, IOC's mission is (1) to identify, expose, and educate the public about non-compliance with local, state, and federal laws of every kind (including but not limited to taxpayer waste and circumvention of voter approval) by government bodies and by persons who conduct any form of business with those bodies; (2) to advocate for and pursue appropriate corrective measures for such non-compliance; and (3) to serve as a "watchdog" to ensure that unethical and illegal conduct by government bodies is exposed and appropriate remedies are pursued.

And if you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you can see the people named as part of this group, none of whom has the last name of Briggs (although he has represented the group in legal matters):

Chairman: Ian Trowbridge

Legal Advisor: Anthony Kim

Now I have not yet researched Anthony Kim - as you will see in a future post in my empo-jooryst series, it is difficult to research people who have very common names. But I figured that Ian Trowbridge would be a relatively easy name to find, so I began looking for an Ian Trowbridge in southern California - perhaps in the Inland Empire, or perhaps in the San Diego area.

Bingo. I found an article all about Trowbridge - about how he had been a "retired Salk Institute researcher who turned his attention to local politics and became a thorn in the side of many an elected official." The article included a quote from "East [San Diego] County activist Charlene Ayers, who worked with Trowbridge to hold government officials accountable to the people they serve." After he retired from the Salk Institute:

Trowbridge became a fixture at public meetings of the San Diego City Council, the county Board of Supervisors, the port commission and any other public agency that he thought might benefit from his civic interest. He advocated for clean-needle exchanges to fight the spread of AIDS. He sued to stop developments over environmental issues, or to avert generous severance packages for corrupt officials.

Oh, and there's one other thing about this article.

It's Trowbridge's obituary.

You see, Ian Trowbridge passed away in early February.

Yet his name is still on the Inland Oversight Committee website, where he is listed as Chairman.

Mayor Daley would have been proud.

(empo-jooryst) The strangest coincidence

This is another post about my experiences as an alternate juror back in March 2013.

As I noted in my previous post, I was questioned on a Tuesday afternoon regarding my fitness as an alternate juror. Neither the prosuection nor the defense objected to my inclusion, so I was sworn in as an alternate juror on that Tuesday afternoon.

Opening statements were scheduled for Wednesday morning, and since the judge had other cases to attend to early in the morning, we were instructed to report to court at 10:30 am on Wednesday morning. Since I am no longer constitutionally (heh) able to sleep in all morning, this gave me some free time before my jury service began.

Now remember what I was NOT allowed to do during this time. I was not allowed to discuss the case with anyone, nor was I allowed to research the particulars of the case. For example, I could not search the Internet to find any news articles that mentioned the defendant in the case. I was also not allowed to use the Internet to research anything about the specific charges that were filed in this case. Although opening statements had not been delivered, I already knew the name of the defendant and the four charges against him.

So I decided to do something that had nothing to do with the defendant and those charges.

I went and got a haircut.

After getting the haircut and taking care of other business, I reported to the courthouse. Since I live in Ontario, I was required to report to the courthouse in Rancho Cucamonga. This is a nice courthouse to report to; among other things, it is a building of recent construction that is reportedly able to withstand a major earthquake. (Not that I want to test this.)

I went through security. This is more comprehensive than TSA security, and is the second strictest security that I have been through. (The most secure place that I have entered is the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.)

After security, I went upstairs, met my fellow jurors and alternate, and proceeded into the courtroom to hear the opening statements.

As the prosecution attorney began his presentation, he described the scene of the crime.

A parking lot outside a barbershop.

Luckily, the barbershop that I had visited that morning was NOT the barbershop in question. Otherwise, I would have had a big problem.

(empo-jooryst) The analogy mashup

While I have been known to write blog posts in advance of their publication, I don't think I've ever written one three months in advance. As I write this, it is March 14; I am scheduling this post to appear some time in July.

Allow me to explain.

As I write this (back in March), I am an alternate on a jury that is hearing a criminal trial. While the trial is in session, I am prohibited from talking about the specific case with anyone (including my dog). I am also prohibited from researching the case on my own. While many of these prohibitions will be lifted once the case ends, I am also unable to talk about the case in exchange for money - at least for a period of 90 days after the case ends. (I'm reluctant to research the particulars of this prohibition at this time, due to the other restraints that the judge has placed upon me.)

Since this blog includes advertisements, the regulation could be construed to prohibit blogging about the case during that 90 day period.

Therefore, if the case ends by the end of March, then this prohibition will be lifted by the end of June. Hence, the delayed nature of this post (and any other posts, with the exception of my March 27 post).

Jury selection began on a Thursday afternoon, then continued all day on Monday, and then continued some more on Tuesday morning and into Tuesday afternoon. For those who have never been involved in jury selection, it consists of a brief interview of each potential juror followed by the judge, followed by questioning from both the prosecution attorney(s) and defense attorney(s). The attorneys are trying to determine if a potential juror would be favorable or unfavorable to their side of the case. After the interviews and questioning, each set of attorneys may choose to remove a potential juror from the panel. This continues for some time (in my case, over three separate working days).

In my particular case, the attorneys used a couple of analogies to determine how the jurors would make decisions regarding guilt or innocence. Again, I am prohibited from researching these analogies online at this time, so I'll reconstruct them from memory.

One analogy discusses a driver who is approaching a yellow traffic light. As the driver approaches, he or she can either go through the light, or stop at the light. The driver only has a split second to do this. The question that the attorneys posed - is this a conscious decision by the driver, or is it a reflex? At this point (March 14) I cannot surmise why this particular analogy was presented, although I have a sneaking suspicion that I know why the question was asked.

The second analogy discusses a hypothetical case in which walking on the beach at night is a crime. In this particular instance, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (since this is a criminal trial, not a civil trial) that all of the elements of the crime are in place, namely (a) that it was night, and (b) that the person was in fact walking on the beach. It is not sufficient, for example, to say that the person was walking on the beach without noting the time that the person was walking on the beach.

These analogies were used in questioning the potential jurors.

Dozens of potential jurors.

Over the course of three working days.

Eventually, by Tuesday afternoon, both the prosecution and the defense had agreed on a set of twelve jurors. But now they had to pick two alternate jurors, so that in case one of the twelve jurors had to drop out for some reason, the court could just plug an alternate juror into the original juror's place and continue with the trial or deliberations or whatever.

I had been waiting for three working days, and had not yet been called. Finally, I was called as a potential juror to fill the second of two alternate juror slots.

The judge asked me if I had any concerns about anything said by the attorneys or by the dozens of potential jurors who had been interviewed previously.

My response: "Well, I don't know what I'd do if I ran into a traffic light on the beach."

The entire court burst into laughter, since this relieved some tension.

I will need to remain silent for the rest of the trial - unless two jurors drop out and I end up in deliberations - so this will probably be the only utterance of mine that will be heard in court. I guess it was worth three days of waiting.