by Paul S . Gillies , Esq .
RUMINATIONS Jury Duty
On June 28 , 2016 , at the Barre courthouse , in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court , Hon . Kevin Griffin presiding , there was a trial , captioned , State v . Patten . James Patten was charged with operating a motor vehicle after suspension or revocation of license and gross negligence operation of a motor vehicle . Washington County Deputy State ’ s Attorney Kristin Gozzi was the prosecutor and Robert Sheftman defended . With 13 others , I was picked to serve on this jury .
Lawyers have served on other juries in Vermont , and at least in my experience , even a judge has been picked . For me , this was my first time . As I ’ m writing about my impressions , the reader should know that I am entirely inexperienced in criminal law , as my career has been spent in civil and municipal law exclusively . I came to this courtroom with fresh eyes .
Following the voir dire , I was the last juror chosen , replacing another who had been challenged . I was seated in the front row , in a seat close to the witness . Before I get too far into this report , you should know that I didn ’ t make it to the end . Judge Griffin dismissed me with another juror , our numbers picked from a small box , as unnecessary alternates , after the evidence , closing arguments , and instructions were completed . This was disappointing to me , as my only experience with jury deliberations to date was repetitive watching of the 1957 film Twelve Angry Men , and I was anxious to see how it worked in real life .
Back in March , during our orientation , we were shepherded by Deputy Sheriff Russell “ Chip ” Higgins , who told us the basic procedures we would be expected to follow as jurors . Chip is a congenial man in the September of his years , with a healthy sense of humor and humility , the very model of a good law enforcement officer . Judge Griffin addressed us about the trial process , covering what is expected of jurors , describing the rules about not talking about the case before deliberation , and concentrating on that mysterious concept of “ beyond a reasonable doubt .” He took questions from the jury pool , and one involved the number of convictions overturned through the work of the Innocence Project . Judge Griffin , formerly a defense attorney , reminded us that no system is more perfect than the people who run it , and that mistakes are made every day in courtrooms all over the country . “ We are only human ” was the message .
We had to appear three times , once a month in March , April , and May , for draws . Although the docket often had many draws scheduled , there were only three or four draws that were actually completed during the spring term , as cases were settled or withdrawn , and only two actually went to trial in that time . I was picked for an earlier jury , but that case was dropped before the day of trial . Somebody said the State had made a mistake in the information , but this , as with many other things that were said among the jurors , was unconfirmed .
The jurors were a fair representation of the public , having a range of ages and backgrounds . All were in good spirits and got to know each other over the course of the days spent together . We were citizens , doing our duty .
Opening remarks were short and rather bland . The prosecutor explained what the evidence would show . Mr . Sheftman , in his opening had a simple message — listen to the evidence and give the defendant his due .
Deputy Higgins was the first witness . Since we already knew him from the first day of draws , he was instantly credible to us . He told how he was on motor vehicle patrol on the County Road in Calais , heading north , when three cars passed him in a row . The last car to him appeared to lack an inspection sticker , so he turned around and caught up to two cars but not the third . He passed the two and accelerated , only to see the third car off the road at the intersection of Bliss Pond Road . When he stopped , he saw two men running across a marshy area toward a house . He drew his revolver and said , “ Stop or I ’ ll shoot .” He explained he kept his gun in a prone position , not aiming it at the men , and never figured on firing the weapon , only to cause the men to stop .
They kept running , so the officer drove up Bliss Pond Road to the driveway of the house and caught the men when they reached the yard . He arrested them , placed them in his cruiser , and brought them to jail .
He believed the man in the light-colored shirt was driving . He indicated that the defendant was the man in the light-colored shirt . The defendant ’ s driver ’ s license was suspended . The car was not in the best of condition . One tire was a temporary donut , another was flayed . I think I heard that there was an inspection sticker on the car after all .
Officer Higgins also testified that he overhead Mr . Patten talking to someone on the phone at the station and that the defendant had said he was driving . A video was played , recorded by the officer ’ s onboard camera . The film started when Deputy Higgins turned around . It did not show the car driving off the road or the men exiting the vehicle , but the run was there , and the police car ’ s movement up to the house . The State also offered a crudely drawn poster showing the intersection , the field , the car , the location of the other witnesses , and the direction of the run .
The State called three other witnesses . Two women had been outside on the lawn of the house to the right of the intersection . They observed the car go off the road , and the men run into the field , the police officer arriving , calling to them , and then driving up to the house . Neither could identify either man or recall the colors of their shirts . They were unclear which man was the driver .
The final witness for the State was the owner of the house to which the men had raced . He was sitting in his living room and observed the whole incident . He could not name who was the driver , and I don ’ t recall he said anything about shirts .
After the State rested , the defense counsel called one witness . He was the other man . He testified he was driving with the defendant with some metal parts they intended to sell for cash at Bolduc ’ s in Montpelier , that the car was borrowed from a friend , and that he had a warrant for his arrest at the time from a custody dispute . He saw the officer turn around , and decided to flee , pass the two cars that were ahead of him , and try to avoid arrest . He said he was going too fast to make the turn onto Bliss Pond Road , and that he and the defendant then left the vehicle and began to run . He said the passenger door couldn ’ t open , so both men had to exit from the driver ’ s side .
The closing arguments were short . The prosecutor reviewed the evidence , and asked for a guilty verdict . The defense counsel reviewed the evidence and the doubt that it created . He said the State had not proven that the defendant was the driver , and that a not guilty verdict was required .
Judge Griffin then read the jury instructions to us . These are lines read and honed over many years , based on model instructions and case law . They discussed how we were not to consider the consequences of
12 THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2016 www . vtbar . org