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 »
Spirit
I've always felt like my life's dream was to quit my job and spend all my time online. I wouldn't only do that, of course – if I won the lottery and quit my job, I'd also travel and take classes and throw parties and do other things – but let's face it, I'd spend a lot of time working on this site and talking to people online. Last night I dreamed I was a ghost, recently passed. Go »Det är inte så farligt
Yesterday, Kelly and I joined friends who had free passes to shop at the new Ikea store in Tampa before it opens to the public. It was our my first time in one of those stores, and it was every bit the harrowing shopping marathon I'd heard it was. For a store that boasts so frequently about how efficient everything is, having you proceed through the store in one long winding line for four hours sure doesn't feel that way, but every store has ways of getting you to buy more than you came for and Ikea has come up with a unique one. Go »All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy
I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »Scott's Pet Peeve #8431
Random strangers on Facebook are not exactly known for impressive displays of intellect, but with several of my friends in the hospital recently, I've been annoyed by one particular bad habit that their friends seem to have: 1) Someone posts that s/he is experiencing a certain medical problem and is going into the hospital. Friends reply with supportive words. 2) A few hours later, the OP posts an update describing what the doctors are doing. Go »Summer of Suck II
Science says that complaining is bad for you, but sometimes it helps me feel better, so I'm going to do it anyway. It's my blog and I can cry if I want to. Summer has arrived and I'm miserable. 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!