Post Florida is Literally Murder
by Steve West on May 23, 2025
Brenda and I recently returned from a wonderful week spent in Sarasota with Scott and Kelly. Lauren and her husband, Jon, were able to fly down from ND to care for Olivia while we were travelling. The trip started as a mixed bag of positives and negatives, as the people in the row in front of us spoke incessantly and at an annoyingly loud volume but the young lady who shared our row was delightful. The airport and SouthWest staff were prepared in advance (thanks to Scott) to wheel me and my luggage around at both ends of the flight, but the UBER app was a little wonky, so we arrived very late to the Airbnb that Scott rented for our stay. What followed was an almost non-stop thrill ride that left us all exhausted and satisfied. Highlights included: Brenda doing almost all of the driving which she enjoyed as it made her inclusion on the trip seem justified (although she never should have felt intrusive in the first place), mini golf with live alligators on the course (baby ones, but still) which we were able to feed without sacrificing any body parts, an incredible cornucopia of foods consisting of Chinese, hillbilly (Linger Lounge) where I had grouper and gator nugget soup, German, an Amish breakfast buffet, Italian, Spanish/Cuban (Columbia restaurant), and gaming at a game store with Scott's local gaming group, and an advantageous meet-up with one of Brenda's oldest friends, Susan, who lives five miles south of the Airbnb. About half of the time, we were pleasantly ensconced in the Airbnb, playing games (one of which we later purchased) and watching Scott's collection of hilarious videos. Kelly joined us as much as she could (she works from home) and we paid a visit to their nearby home in Bradenton and met their cat and got an envious view of Kelly's Dream Box storage unit. But after a week full of memories, we (a little regretfully) returned to Maryland, I made a little scrapbook with pictures of our trip and sent it to Florida. Good times I'll cherish. BTW, I'm now addicted to Peach Crush.
Catching up on mail, I called the number for a jury summons shortly after our return and learned I had to report for duty the next day. So, for the last week I've been a juror in a murder trial. This was the fourth time I've been summoned for jury duty, but the first time actually called to serve as a juror. For this case, they called for ninety prospective jurors, and I was assigned number "42". After several people were eliminated through the process of voir dire, 16 people were selected ending with juror number "44". I seemed to be in the group of alternates. One juror misunderstood the stated potential length of the trial (at least four days, not the 1 day he was expecting) and claimed hardship and was therefore dismissed. 16 became 15. One other juror requested dismissal because of hardship as he was the only parent who could drive his children to school (his wife didn't drive, and no friends could substitute for him). The judge granted his request for dismissal and15 became 14 for the duration of the trial.
On the first day, all 14 jurors sat in the jury box and listened to the judge's instructions. He emphasized that our decision had to be solely based on evidence and not conjecture, opinions, sympathies, or hearsay. The State's Attorney gave his opening statement followed by the Defense Attorney's. The State carries the burden of proving guilt, so they call the first witnesses. What followed was a boring, but essential, call of witnesses providing details of the crime. A man was murdered and the defendant charged with the crime. As interesting as the case appears, it's nothing like television. Most participants (victim, defendant, and primary witnesses) were Latino and spoke only Spanish. Therefore, questioning consisted of an attorney asking a question, the interpreter translating in Spanish, the witness responding, the interpreter translating the response to English, and half the time an objection causing a sidebar at the bench with white noise muffling the parties' words. Brutal pictures were displayed of the victim receiving 27 knife wounds (10 cut wounds and17 stab wounds to the face and torso). Largely uninformative police body cam videos were shown, a crime scene investigator's retelling swab collection locations of blood splatters (walls, doors, door handles, knife blade, knife handle, sink, and victim's hands and fingernails) and a DNA expert offered his analysis. The defendant had fled the scene and had to be arrested and extradited from NC therefore no swabs were useful a month after the incident. The defense attorney (appointed by the court) was quite skilled in her attempt to discredit witnesses, obfuscate evidence, and confuse timelines.
The prosecuting attorney then called his primary witness, the girlfriend who shared a room with the defendant. They all (defendant - age 22, girlfriend - age 44, victim - age 70, and two other adult males) rented rooms in the basement of the same house. She was able to recount her boyfriend's jealous rage (present on other occasions), his argument with the victim, his opening of a kitchen drawer to retrieve the knife, his following the victim to his bedroom, his stabbing of the victim, his placing of the bloody knife in the kitchen sink, and his flight from the scene. The Prosecution rested and Defense called no witnesses.
The State's Attorney gave his closing argument followed by the Defense. The Prosecuting attorney was given the opportunity to rebut causing more objection and sidebars. And finally, after three days of testimony, the Judge gave instructions to the jury, dismissed jurors "43" and "44" as alternates, assigned a Foreman, and we were sent to deliberate. An informal vote was taken to see where we stood on each of the four charges: Murder in the 1st degree, Murder in the2nd degree, Physical Assault of the girlfriend, and Brandishing a Deadly Weapon with Intent to do Bodily Harm. The assault charge we determined the defendant "Not Guilty" because the State failed to prove it with evidence. It was easily conceivable the defendant did indeed slap her across the face but there were no witnesses or doctor reports, only her word that it happened. The brandishing a deadly weapon charge was a unanimous "Guilty".
The sticking point was the charge of murder as 1st or 2nd degree. It can't be both. We were all convinced the defendant murdered the victim but what differentiates the two is whether it was premeditated (1st) or not (2nd or so-called crimes of passion). Eight (including me) voted 1st. We gave the other four an opportunity to explain why they voted for second. Their rationalization was because of the short timeframe from argument to murder. We went around the table to allow anyone to express themselves. When it was my turn, I explained that premeditation does not have to occur over a lengthy period. It may be a brief time but long enough for the murderer to be cognizant that his actions could have deadly effects. The defendant engaged in a heated argument with the victim who fled to his room. Then the defendant took the time to open the kitchen drawer, retrieve a 7-inch blade butcher knife, pursue the victim to his room, and proceed to murder him. He didn't chase him to have a fistfight, he didn't select another item to perhaps harm him with, he chose a knife whose repeated use could and probably would cause the victim's death. That does indeed qualify as premeditation.
After I spoke, three of the four holdouts changed their vote to 1st degree. The following hour consisted of spirited debate with the final juror. The vote was required to be unanimous, otherwise it would be considered a mistrial. But there was no animosity. It simply came down to allow this individual time to consider the definition of premeditation. He finally conceded that he misunderstood the term and was willing to change his vote. The foreman filled out the appropriate paperwork, and submitted it to the clerk who in turn, submitted it to the Judge. While waiting for all court personnel to return to the courtroom, we took the time to speak openly to each other in terms of how much we admired each other, and the time and effort spent to reach this moment. I had been walking with a cane the entire time and on my turn, I stated that, "Nobody asked, but I have MS, and I want to thank each one of you for your kindness and tolerance of my condition (they went out of their way to hold doors for me, slow down when I fell behind walking to our numerous rooms, defer to me going first when selecting seats, etc.). One man spoke for the group and told me they had the utmost respect for me. They valued my opinion and leadership. You don't often hear what others think of you. I was stunned and could only repeat my gratitude.
We were called back to the jury box. The Judge asked the Foreman if we had reached a decision. She replied affirmatively. The Judge read each charge and polled each of us individually, "To the charge of Murder in the First Degree, how say you?" He asked this of each juror for the three applicable charges. The Defense was sincerely dumbfounded. Nevertheless, the Judge thanked us for our service, and we returned to the jury deliberation room. I don't know what the sentence was as the judge determined that after we were dismissed. The State of Maryland does not impose the death penalty. I felt better about that since I have a philosophical problem with imposing a "perfect" (unchangeable) solution in an imperfect (erroneous) system. However, in this political climate, I suspect the defendant to be deported and placed in some Central American death camp. An armed bailiff escorted us to a van where we were each delivered to our vehicles.
The end. Until next year, maybe. Prince George's County in the state of MD has changed the possibility of jury obligation from once every three years to once per year.
One Reply to Post Florida is Literally Murder
Web Junkie
Steve West scours the Web searching for interest or absurdity and then shakes his head ruefully when he finds it. Read more »
Vanity Plates
Although a few are a little crude, many of these vanity plates are clever and funny. I've never had a desire to acquire one myself but I do admire a good one when I see it on the road. My personal favorite is "PLAN AHE". Go »This Was No Boat Accident
Vacation Tip #2: Maybe you're into sharks, pun intended. I, myself, am not. For the longest time this has been my greatest fear; being eaten alive by a wild animal. Go »Toothpicks, They're Not Just For Club Sandwiches Anymore
Remember back in fifth grade when you had to build that bridge, vague geometric shape, outhose, etc. out of toothpicks? The project so fragile if the bus to school took a turn at more than 2 mph, it would crumble to pieces. Go »The Fragrance of Introverts
Recent conversation with Brenda: Brenda: You look so busy. What are you working on now? Me: An advertisement for a cologne for introverts that hasn't been created yet. Go »Watch Your Step
Stuff I stumbled upon this week. Oldie but still funny - Go »
Scott Hardie | June 14, 2025
I'll write separately about your visit, but it should suffice to say that I had a great time, too. And what a crazy difference in two weeks, to spend one on a fun visit to Florida and the next in a bloody murder trial! I have always wondered how well I'd tolerate the horrors of a murder trial, since my one and only time serving on a jury was definitely less frightening. It sounds like you had to contemplate the kind of things that would give me nightmares for months. Good on you to have the fortitude and sense of duty to see it through!
Being a layperson, I'm shocked by the threshold for premeditation being so slim. A few moments is all it takes? A quick Google search indicates that you had the definition correct, and it really surprises me. I assume that in your trial, there was more to establishing the intent to kill than merely "having a few seconds during which the defendant could have decided not to do it," as in, there was some evidence that the defendant wanted the victim dead and intended to kill him and gave thought to the act. Because if a first-degree conviction doesn't require all of that evidence, and merely having a few seconds during which someone might have changed their mind is sufficient "premeditation," that's very unnerving to me. Why even bother having a second degree if the first is so very easy to justify? Then again, it's not as unnerving as the crime itself as you described it, and what's important is that a dangerous individual is not free to repeat his violence.
If indeed you wind up serving again soon, may it be a much less dreadful case. I have not once been summoned in the nine years that I have now lived in Manatee County, and I expect that my cognitive impairment would disqualify me if I did get summoned (hello, grounds for appeal), but I'll write about it if it does happen.