Jury Duty - Is There Racial Prejudice?

I have seen a lot of change over the past fifty years in U.S. civil rights and how all people are treated today. In the past 50 years, the rate of black Americans killed by police has dropped 70 percent. With all the countries around the world I have travelled to, you cannot ever show me how any other country is a greater place to live. We, the people, live under the U.S. Constitutional rules of law which offer us the greatest individual freedom. So contrary to the headlines about the White-Black racial divide, read what are the real statistics.   

• In 2012, 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. There are currently more than 43 million blacks living in the U.S.A. In 2012, 326 whites were killed by police bullets. Those are the latest stats available.

• In 2013, blacks committed 5,375 murders in America; whites committed 4,396. Whites comprise 63 percent of the population; blacks 13 percent. So, anyone -- anyone thinking clearly can see that the homicide rate among blacks way out of proportion thus, the police intrusion into black precincts. Since, in a whopping 90 percent of black homicides, the dead person is another black or the offender himself.

Because of all the demagoguery on how racial our jury system is, I am writing this article to let others look into what a sequestered jury in an isolated room sees and how they make their decisions to arrive at their final verdict. It was not a scripted Perry Mason or Matlock TV show with perfect plots revealing everything or even having complete answers to all open questions before a final verdict either, but it certainly was a real life lesson in how our legal system under Constitutional Laws affords every citizen due process. I do encourage everyone to serve as a juror to see firsthand how objectively law is conducted as fairly as humanly possible.

I served as the jury foreman and just signed off on the verdict document for a criminal case in a felony trial that convicted the defendant. It was not a slam dunk, easy decision process as twelve people were attempting to become one in their final decision to unanimously decide a defendant's fate.

Behind the closed doors of the jury room, due process of law works. During our deliberations process all jury members, Americans living within a racially diverse culture, never promulgated nor mentioned it and was not in any deference to the defendant either--it was a moot point. The volume of physical evidence, testimony by several witnesses, points of law and jury instructions truly focused our ultimate decision. We were there to determine the merits based on just facts in the case.

We examined the inconsistencies and flaws of the case from both sides, the defense and the prosecutor. On weighing the details, we discovered omissions of evidence or facts that were holes in the State's arguments which were questionable to allow reasonable doubt of the charge made. It lead to a logical conclusion that the Prosecutor was either directed by the court or a point of law to deliberately prevent certain evidence to be presented to the jury; i.e., past criminal records, allowable testimony by witnesses or lines of questioning leading to the jury to consider incomplete information. One glaring realization popped up; it was not a neat, tidy TV Courtroom drama with all of the facts laid out for the right or wrong decision--this was reality TV on steroids.

In our desire to maintain balance, in review of the Defense attorney's case presented the alleged suspect was not the defendant. It was claimed that another party was solely responsible for the crime of vehicular theft who then gave his keys over and lent the vehicle to the defendant who mistakenly believed the party was the legal owner. As the defendant took the stand, the Defense attorney noted he was taking the stand, which is not required or any admission of guilt if not taken. The defendant answered all his questions forthrightly and seemingly honest too.

During the Prosecutor's cross-examination, however, a serious breakdown occurred. The defendant could not offer the vehicle owner's last name or whereabouts, a key witness's full name or address, a cousin's name corroborating an alibi and a solid timeline account without questionable lapses. Since criminal records were allowable evidence, the prosecutor in cross examination of the defendant asked about his three prior felony convictions. He admitted to these prior felony convictions too. They were objected by his defense attorney, acknowledged by the judge and overruled to be allowed to stand in evidence in his testimony. It offered the jury an opportunity to evaluate further the defendant's moral turpitude and character in assessing his veracity on the witness stand while he was testifying.   

Our jurist instructions directed we jurors to not tweet, blog, IM, Google, Facebook, discuss anything to anybody or even to fellow jurors until jury deliberations and then, only then, after the case has been decided and adjudicated with our final verdict all findings are public record open to all discussions.

I did not hear or see any jurors who broke their solemn oath to uphold their word to defend the law, we all relied on just the evidence as it was presented in court.  

In the first polling around the table, eight were for guilty and four were for not guilty. It was at that point, and for the next two hours, that after exhaustive views proffered by all, lengthy debates and two more polls taken that distilled our decision down to a guilty verdict, "Beyond a reasonable doubt." 

I stood up in court and gave out the verdict from the jury box to the bailiff who199th District Court - McKinney, TX passed it over to the Judge to read. Needless to say, the defendant was glaring and staring me down while the verdict was read as I looked right into his bloodshot, red eyes. He then slowly sat down, put down his elbows on the table and buried his face into his open hands while woefully shaking his head. 

After the trial I was informed about his rap sheet that went back over twenty years but only the past ten years was admitted into evidence about all of his prior violations, incarcerations and fines. Due to rules about prejudicial facts not directly related to the current case any past litigations and motions allowed to establish the accused defendant's past is only limited to the current past decade during the trial proceedings or in front of a jury. In general, any past criminal actions can tarnish any defendant's credible personal integrity about telling the truth. Any older facts also could deny a defendant's right to a fair trial if not based on just the facts in the current alleged crime that he is specifically accused of committing on the pending trial docket.

FYI: At the Colin County, Texas Courthouse I observed that all ethnicities, ages, genders, backgrounds, education and income levels were represented in this American judicial due process of law. It included everyone like the sheriff's deputies providing security, jury room and office staff assisting in selection and the courtroom bailiff who was extremely accommodating in allowing the jury to discharge its duties uninterrupted. 

Our jurist, the Honorable Judge Angela Tucker was a woman, black, intelligent adjudicator who conducted a well ordered court room with the proper decorum, dignity and respect that our Constitutional legal system deserves.

Mr. Chris Fredericks, Asst. D.A. Prosecutor, and Mr. Mark O'Brian Jr., Defense attorney, presented an amalgam of evidence that offered defendant testimony, character witnesses, physical evidence, victim testimony and relevant facts that would affect our jury decision. They were professionals who clearly represented both sides fairly in the case while allowing each side to be heard. We the jury, therefore, legitimately decided a just verdict.

On our panel of jurors was a genial group with diverse views, strong opinions and sharp, critical thinking skills. They autopsied the case and dissected under a microscope the facts, evidence and legal conclusions postulated by the defense and prosecution to determine if the charges were correct as charged.

Now, see what we, the jury, were presented with as evidence and the facts we relied upon to render our verdict. 

Arrested: Patrick Deyone Lee

DOB: 09/08/1972 

Gender: Male
Race: Black
Date Arrested: 11/13/2013
County Arrested: Collin, TX
Other Information: A Police Field Unit arrested Patrick Deyone Lee on Wednesday, 11/13/2013 at 10:30 am at a traffic stop while actively being tracked by GPS from Dallas to Plano after the vehicle he was driving was reported stolen in Dallas at 7:00 am on the same morning. The vehicle was physically first spotted by Plano police officers as it was slowly exiting a back alley behind residential homes onto a residential street.

The arrestee stated that a Mike, aka Black, no known surnames, had been been paid twenty dollars for gas by Patrick Lee to use said vehicle during the morning hours to be returned by noon and gave him the keys. The vehicle had no signs of damage due to broken glass, ignition wires jump-started or any tampered steering lock column that lead Patrick Lee to believe Mike wasn't the owner. Patrick Lee said his own vehicle needed brake shoes which prevented him from driving it and that morning he just checked prices at an Auto Zone store to buy them for a local mechanic to repair his car brakes. 

The arrestee further offered to arresting officers that during that morning he was driving around Plano neighborhoods for over an hour attempting to locate a Kim, no known surnames. Kim was a co-worker of Patrick Lee's fiancée, Kimberly, who worked at a senior health care home services company who promised Patrick Lee a list of her elderly clients who could possibly hire him for handyman jobs or lawn maintenance services.

Patrick Lee also stated that after his single visit one week earlier with his fiancée, he could only recall Kim had a one story brick house with a pickup parked out front in the driveway off a major street in an unfamiliar city since he had maybe driven through it three or four times ever. There was no known address or phone numbers for Kim available because he lost Kim's numbers in his cell phone directory. The police requested to examine his cell phone and discovered it had no directory setup for anyone indicating his questionable claim of storing Kim's number. Furthermore, he was driving over unannounced in hopes of seeing Kim so she could not be called to corroborate any appointment to explain his presence in that Plano neighborhood that day.

Patrick Lee's mother and fiancée, Kimberly, who he lived with corroborated at the trial the defendant's timeline for that morning. He drove his mother to work at 6:30 am, returned home and watched TV with Kimberly until 8:30 am and picked up loaner car at 9:00 am from Mike or Black.

Earlier that morning Patrick Lee's mechanic who lived nearby testified he saw Black in the car and was impressed with the aftermarket chrome wheels and stereo sound system; even Kimberly testified they lived in a quiet apartment nearby too with many elderly and thought it out of place to hear loud music and looked out her window to see the boosted car with shiny wheels and boom box speakers blasting. Their testimonies indicated that this car was new to them, to their neighborhood and to Black which meant he, the owner, newly acquired the vehicle. The mechanic further testified of talk on doing the brake repair with Patrick Lee; but to date has not fixed it.

The true owners of the said vehicle did not know any Mike or Black, Kim, Patrick Lee or Kimberly. The owners or others did not witness this criminal act of auto theft with any suspect involved or during the commission of the alleged crime. The owner had started his vehicle engine to warm it up in front of his house, left the keys in the ignition and ran back inside for a cup of coffee only to return to find it stolen. The owners, however, during the morning in question did not give any permission to anyone to drive their motor vehicle. So, the Penal Code offense charged was in fact: Theft, Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, a state jail felony level, 31.01 PC statute. It's a state jail felony if the value of the service stolen is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000.

The exact statute reads as follows: 

Sec. 31.07. UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly operates another's boat, airplane, or motor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony. 

Two "Points of Law" that, we, the Jury had to consider in this case: In this section of law, the statute uses the phrase “without effective consent of the owner." This is a straight-forward fact that the owner had given consent. This language, however, also raises the possibility of "a mistake of fact defense." This law means: If the defendant subjectively and reasonably believes he or she had consent to take the property, the defense could be applicable.--Patrick Lee, therefore, implies that he relied upon by Mike or Black's action to give him the car keys that the vehicle was his to loan out for the twenty dollars. 

Court Proceedings and Findings

The entire scenario presented by Patrick Lee during the course of the evidence presented was debunked by the Prosecutor, the Defendant's own testimony and his witnesses. It was "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" he was guilty as charged: 

• There's no proof of Mike or Black ever residing where the car was picked up.
• Car keys taken explain absence of broken windows or hot-wired ignition.  
• Allegedly Mike or Black moved to New Orleans 11/13/2013, never to return.
• Due to no provable owner's consent, "Mistake of Fact Defense" was negated.
• No brake repairs were done even while waiting on bail for a year for the trial.
• No Kim never came forward to say she offered Patrick Lee work references.
• Suspicions raised on aimless mid-week, morning cruises in residential area.  
• Patrick Lee's timeline allowed periods to steal and drive away vehicle.
• The owners "did not give permission to anyone" to drive their motor vehicle.
• Patrick Lee admitted he was a convicted felon on three past counts.

Punishment Phase:

It was conducted by the Honorable Angela Tucker, the presiding judge, and the defendant, Patrick Lee, pled TRUE to all counts.  Punishment was assessed 5 years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice system. 

Post Trial Information: 

Note: These are the three prior felony convictions cited in the trial phase; however, this listing does not include previous records of past arrests, convictions, sentences and incarcerations. It was further disclosed afterwards that the defendant's criminal record spanned twenty years which included burglary and assault as well as other infractions of the law.

Date Arrested: 07/14/2009

County Arrested: Dallas
Other Information: The Fugitive Unit arrested Patrick Deyone Lee at a parole office in Dallas on a warrant issued by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Board on June 26, 2009, for a parole violation for absconding from a halfway house. Lee was sentenced to five years in prison after being convicted in 1996 in Dallas County of sexual assault of a child, a 16-year-old girl. At the time of his July 14, 2009, arrest, Lee was on parole for failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements in the Dallas County case. Lee was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted in 2007 for the registration violation.

Information current as of 2012-12-04 14:06:41

Date Arrested: After 2013-01-01 (Approx.)

County Arrested: Dallas

Other Information: Patrick Deyone Lee had been arrested and charged as a felon carrying a concealed weapon.