those silly and confusing grey areas.........

Talk to most people, and they see the world in terms of black and white. Either it's right or wrong, pass or fail, and no in between will be found with them. I could never quite buy into that rational, as I feel many (if not most) things have not two sides, but three. It was all a matter of looking through the forest to see the trees. It's what I call the "grey areas".

Enter into any discussion between two people who take different views on an issue, and you will find great arguments to support each stand. Those are the first two sides. Enter a mediator, and you have a third side. This is the person who has to tackle the issue of the grey areas. It's not an easy position, to be sure, but a necessary and important one, as the mediator needs to extract the best of both sides, while remaining objective... a juror of sorts.

I stood in that position 18 years ago when I was selected to be a juror in a rape trial. The victim was a 9 year old girl, the alleged rapist was in his 40's. Out of the many times I have been called for jury duty, this was the only actual case I was picked to sit in on. Part of me wanted to convict this man solely on the idea that he sat in the defendants chair, but my rational mind wanted the facts first.... as that's the democratic process they warn you about in a movie they show prior to making it into the courtroom. Once in the courtroom, "voir dire" is the content of questions both attorneys ask each individual before picking a non-partial, non-predjudice person to sit on a jury. Seeing that my answers to the questions appealed to both sides, and I was already one of the first twelve people already sitting in the jury box, selection was made, and I received my badge to wear throughout the proceedings.

Always having grandeur designs on being in a real life "Perry Mason" situation, I took my position seriously, and listened to all the facts layed before me. It was NOT a no-brainer, and there were no outbursts from the galley, this was very serious business indeed. The actual trial lasted only one day, the deliberations, two. It was heart-wrenching to say the least, as the young girl looked so little, and was quite definite that the man that sat in the defendants chair did indeed rape her. She would be ruined for life, as he had not only "tore her up", but had given her gonorrhea as well. This would raise questions in her future whether she would be able to ever have children.... a statement the girls attorney tried to drive home every chance she had.
On the other hand, the defendants attorney was skillful in his questioning as well. He confused the girl on every story she told about the incident, making her seem unsure of all the circumstances that had occurred. Through all this, the defendants attorney seemed cool and collected. He had many friends of the defendant there to stand up for the character of his client, as well as a picture of a known rapist who frequented the area where the crime had occurred.
The girls attorney did not fare so well on the evidence side, nor did she control her temper well.

Going into the deliberation room to discuss the facts, we were all left with a sense that not all the facts had really been revealed to us, and coming to find out later, they weren't. But I'll get to that.

After picking a jury foreman, we discussed all possibilities of the situation. Insert scenes of "Twelve Angry Men" here. We did do our share of arguing, deliberating, and listening to others. Somehow, though, things still did not add up. Calling in the court officer to re-examine the evidence, and possibly get a copy of the transcripts, we were told that we would have to rely on any notes we had made and pictures put into evidence... no transcripts would be allowed. Although this didn't seem to be fair, we were not in a position to argue the point, as the judge had issued his ruling on the matter. We were to declare the man innocent, guilty, or flat out come to no decision, thus making it a mistrial. The foreman (which was actually a woman), begged us to come together, as she didn't want the stigma of the mistrial. We finally did at the end of day two, and declared the man innocent.

I knew as soon as the verdict was read, we were terribly wrong. The defendant showed no emotion whatsoever, other than a smirk on his face. No jubilation at his freedom, no shaking of hands with his attorney. I only saw the look of a man who knew that he had gotten away with a heinous crime, and wanted nothing more than to get out on the streets again. He would make a hasty retreat as soon as the judge banged his gavel that the proceedings were over. On the other hand, the girls attorney was truly mad at us, and her disgust was apparent. She not only pooled each of us individually with our verdict, but then hastily gather all her evidence and stomped out the door. We were left in a complete state of disbelief, and wanted to talk with her upon moving out of the courtroom. Her assistant was left to answer any questions, as her boss waved us off with her hand and very loudly declared, " I don't want to talk with any of them, they just let off a rapist! They can all live with that for the rest of their lives!" Well, come to find out, this man had seen the inside of a courtroom many more times than we all had collectively. This was not the first time he was charged with rape, and chances are it wouldn't be the last. When we asked why that evidence was not available in the trial, we were told that prior offenses were not allowed to be revealed, as it would have predjudiced our minds.

To be honest with you, it would be the only time that I wouldn't have minded that the grey areas be put to the side. This really was a case of black and white. That said, though, I still believe that I couldn't let that lead my life for me. Everything still deserves the honest weighing of both sides, extracting important elements, and coming to a decision of what side to stand on, even if it means that I agree with certain things from two opposing sides. I call that: my side. It sure seems confusing, I know. One should take a stand, and stay there.... and on certain issues, I most certainly do. One thing I know for certain though, I am never above the fact that I could be terribly wrong, and it's mostly due to the fact that I didn't pay attention the the grey areas as well as I should have.

On a side note to all of this, I never did hear anything more about the little girl or the rapist. I was called into jury duty a few years after that, and scolded by the sitting judge at that time, because I declared that duty would be a hardship for me then. Taking my lickings, and walking out of the Fulton County Courthouse, I remembered the judge and his court clerk. It was hard not to. This past March, our city was held somewhat hostage by a man waiting for trial who overcame a guard, stole her gun, then brutally shot a judge and court clerk while they were preparing morning papers before court started. It turned out that it was the judge that had scolded me, and his court clerk. Once again, I was called to jury duty this past September (getting my summons on my birthday in August), and in telling it to a friend, she said I would probably have to sit in on the Brian Nichols case.... the man who had shot the judge and his clerk. I told her that I had no doubts I would be disqualified, as I found no grey areas here. This was purely black and white, and I knew that Nichols was guilty as sin.