Trial of the Century
by Scott Hardie on September 17, 2016
I served on my first jury last week, for the gripping case of the Walmart Protein Bar Bandit, accused of a $1.46 theft.
Voir dire was oddly focused on whether grazing (eating groceries before you pay for them) was acceptable, whether eating protein right after a workout is important, and whether any of us had strong feelings about the Walmart corporation. I expected the high response rate on the last item, but I was surprised at how many people graze when they shop. It's not really wrong, but it's at least a little wrong, isn't it? And risky in case you forget to pay? Kelly is diabetic and often enters the store very thirtsy or in urgent need of carbs, but she doesn't graze; she buys one item to solve her immediate need, consumes it, and then shops for the rest. i don't know why this method eludes so many people.
Once the trial finally got underway, the county prosecutors laid out tons of evidence that the incident happened. They brought in Walmart's loss prevention agent to tell us how he witnessed the defendent grab a protein bar and sports drink from the health section and eat them while continuing to shop. They presented photographs of the checkout area, with the loss prevention guy pointing out where he stood when he heard the clerk ask "is that empty sports drink bottle yours?" and the defendent say "yes" and the clerk ask "and the wrapper?" and the defendent say "no, that was there." They showed us the empty wrapper, entered into evidence. They showed us his receipt for all of the other items that he purchased, including the empty sports drink. They showed us video footage of the loss prevention agent stopping him on the way out the door and directing him to the security office. They brought in the police officer who responded to the call and decided not to arrest the guy over $1.46.
The defense's case was simpler, relying solely on the defendent's testimony: He was tired after his workout, grazed, bought his groceries, the clerk asked him about the sports drink, he affirmed that it was his, then she asked about other things and they chatted for a couple of minutes, then she told him to swipe his card to pay. He forgot all about the wrapper until he was stopped at the door. The defense attorney reminded us that the petit theft law requires two things to be proven, that a theft occurred and that intention to steal had been proven. If you sincerely forgot to pay for something, you are not guilty of a crime.
When we started deliberating in the jury room (where I was the youngest person by 20 years; ah, Sarasota), it was clear pretty quickly that we were all ready to vote "not guilty." The county had spent all of that time showing that a theft had occurred, but very little establishing intent. It was the word of the loss prevention agent against the defendent as to what words were said, and while we understood that the defendent had a strong interest in getting acquitted, the county's own photographs had shown us how far away the loss prevention agent was standing from the conversation. In a noisy Walmart, it seemed reasonable that the employee had misheard the conversation. The county had no video footage from checkout showing the clerk pointing to the wrapper, and no testimony or affadavit from the clerk who rung up the purchase, either of which might have gone a long way towards proving guilt. Based on the judge's instructions about assuming innocence first until guilt is reasonably proven, we had no choice but to vote not guilty. The judge gave us all little achievement certificates like we were graduating from kindergarten and that was it.
Two hours waiting to be called, an hour in voir dire, an hour break for lunch, two hours in trial, and it took us two minutes to acquit the guy. And all of this over $1.46! I understand the point of prosecuting petit theft (if the county decided that it's not worth it to prosecute thefts below $X, then people would freely steal items below $X), but if Sarasota County is going to try this kind of case over legal principles, then it really needs to pick a better example and build a stronger case proving intent. What a waste of time for all involved and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Six Replies to Trial of the Century
Matthew Preston | September 19, 2016
This is great, I have yet to serve on jury duty (I've only ever been selected as an alternate). The whole situation makes for a fascinating read, but I simply lost it at the "achievement certificates" part. At least you got paid and a free lunch right? This only solidifies your point about wasting taxpayer dollars though I think.
Scott Hardie | September 21, 2016
No free lunch. We bought sandwiches from a cafe across the street. The juror who sat with me paid more for a bag of M&Ms with his lunch than the defendant supposedly stole.
I did at least enjoy the view outside. The county's buildings have an attractive older style.
Chris Lemler | October 13, 2016
Scott im sorry but thats to funny. I see that at my store all the time. People steal little stuff like 1.46 stuff when they should be trying to take the more expensive stuff. That is a dumb shoplifter for ya.
Scott Hardie | October 22, 2016
Maybe they feel like smaller thefts aren't "as wrong" as big thefts. Maybe they figure they won't get prosecuted over little tiny thefts. Maybe that's what this guy figured in my case. I don't think Sarasota County was wrong to charge the guy for stealing $1.46; I just wish they hadn't done so with such a flimsy case. It's possible that there was more going on that we in the jury weren't privy to -- I googled the guy and he does have a felony record, so maybe they wanted him off the streets or something, or maybe the compelling evidence got tossed out and the county had to proceed with weak evidence -- but from our limited perspective it sure seemed like a wasted day. At least I got a good story out of it I guess.
Lori Lancaster | October 31, 2016
[hidden by author request]
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Happy Holidays
In case you wonder why it takes me so long to answer your message: I'm signing off for a week and a half while Kelly visits. Parties, shopping, museums, bowling, movies, lots of restaurants, and a few days at Disney World lie ahead. Have a wonderful holiday week. Go »Risky Games
Here's plugging two games that I've been enjoying lately: Dice Wars is a good little miniature online game for one person, playable in about 20 minutes and very satisfying for its size. The text below the game explains the rules, but suffice to say, it's basically Risk but built to be played rapidly thanks to some rule simplification and a very swift AI. (Thanks for suggesting it, Joandy!) Go »Mile-High Hypocrisy
The homeowners' association in a Denver suburb is furious that one of its residents has dared to put up a Christmas wreath in the shape of the peace symbol. (link) Yeah. Keep reading till the end. Go »February 10-16
I don't really blog much about my day-to-day existence because it feels too mundane. But life is made up of those little days, and we don't get an accurate picture of each other's lives if we only discuss the big events. Here's a snapshot of my life last week. Go »Scott's Pet Peeve #2519
Why do some microwaves have a convenient quick-start option if you press 1 or 2 or 3, so that they instantly start cooking with 1:00 or 2:00 or 3:00 on the clock... but DON'T have this same functionality programmed into 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, which do nothing when pressed alone? How does an engineer possess both the vision to provide the former and the lack of imagination that results in the latter? Go »
Denise Sawicki | September 17, 2016
That's insane. What a way to spend the day . I've been called for jury duty a few times but the trial always got cancelled at the last minute. It never occurred to me there would be such a big production over $1.46. Interesting story though!