I was recently called for jury duty and in this case the defendant was accused of driving while under the influence of alcohol and driving in a negligent manner. It was my job, along with the other six members of the jury, to assess whether or not we believed that he was guilty of these charges. (Since my story does not have to do with the outcome of the trial I will tell you now that he was guilty on both counts.)
During the two day long trial the defense attorney repeatedly made the defendant’s social class an issue. The defense attorney accused the police officer of pulling over the defendant based solely on his class status and made a point to tell us how a guilty verdict would negatively affect himself, his business, and his family.
During the beginning of the trial a lot was made of the fact that the defendant had three glasses of pinot grigio and a whole bottle of Pierre during his dinner on the night in question. We were also told that he is a wealthy man who has been married for 40 years, has two children in college, and has a broken bridge (for his mouth) so his speech is slurred due to the fact that his correct bridge will not be in until November. The defense attorney claimed that the police officer knew of the defendants social class based on his car (a Bently) and, after he was pulled over, his watch.
During this defense of “too rich to be convicted” the jury was informed that the defendant has $140 million worth of mortgages in his name through his development company. Also, during the closing arguments the attorney addressed the men on jury and asked if they new that true sound that a baseball bat makes when you hit a home run, and us ladies, did we know the true sound that a crystal glass makes when you ping it? (His point? We can tell when testimony sounds true and when it does not.)
All in all, this repetitive, sexist, elitist attorney lost me at hello. I gave his client the benefit of the doubt but he was guilty at the end of the day and had to face his punishment (what that will be I am not sure). In my mind this case was based on the fact that the defendant had too much to drink while at dinner which impaired his ability to make rational decisions if not impair his ability to function properly. It was not based on if the defendant had too much to lose due to his stupid actions because he is a rich corporate business man.
Interesting but not surprising that the attorney tried to impress the jury with the class and accomplishments of the defendant. I'm wondering if this mimics how we view the elite or the upper class - that somehow they are better than us and so we are in awe. It's hard to hold on to the knowledge that it is often the case that they had more privileges and resources than the rest of us. So they really are just like us.
ReplyDelete