Huge content warning: sexual assault, abuse, addiction
Hey everyone,
I’m writing this post immediately after this experience as I’m just completely in disbelief. I’ve served for the last couple of weeks on a jury regarding a number of charges of rape a man was alleged to have committed against his former wife. The two had known each other for decades and had a dysfunctional on-again, off-again connection and significant substance use issues.
As we were deliberating, a guy who’s about 20 and had made some irritating, arrogant quips across the process of the case wanted to put a fine point on the fact that the victim did not leave the accused’s house across the duration of the assaults (suggesting that someone who was really in fear wouldn’t stick around). We’d had some awkward back and forths at different points and he persistently treated any occasion on which I put questions to him in response to his points as a some sort of personal attack. This grated on me and I was getting a bit fed up with some of his behaviour, including calling days of testimony by an alleged repeated rape victim who basically went straight to the hospital and police “not evidence.” I have been sexually assaulted and, due to that and what I feel is just common sense, didn’t think this was reasonable. You have such a complex mix of emotions in those moments that you fundamentally aren’t thinking clearly, and that would only be compounded by the fact that the two had a longstanding connection, which I think would make someone feel a lot of cognitive dissonance if raped after a history of consensual sex. I said this, including openly saying “I’ve been sexually assaulted, and….’ He went silent and I actually thought maybe it had been a wake-up call for him.
The next day (today) we get back in the deliberation room. The juror with whom I had this history of somewhat awkward exchanges almost immediately brings up the fact that I mentioned I’d been sexually assaulted and starts saying that I should have excused myself from the case. Understandably a bit heated, my response was:
-
One doesn’t have to. One can excuse oneself if they feel the content of the crime could negatively impact them
-
The aim is to get a cross-section of the community
-
Sexual assault is prevalent in the community and it would be unlikely for no jury trying sexual assault cases to have sexual assault victims
-
All our experiences/exposures can affect us
As I said this, the problematic juror rebuked it and repeatedly claimed that I wasn’t suitably logical, even after I’d read half a page of reasoning as to why I believe the allegations. Some other jurors said that it was brave that I’d admitted it and clearly didn’t have an issue with it. Another juror (an older woman) said she had also experienced sexual assault. Another said they’d grown up in an environment that included a threatening male with a substance use issues and that theoretically someone could see that as disqualifying if this logic applied. Another tense exchange then took place, where the juror in question claimed I’d “been out of control” throughout the trial. I could not believe what I was hearing. I said he could feel free to ask the judge whether sexual assault victims should be excluded from sexual assault trials and are fundamentally unable to reason. Interestingly, another juror later mentioned that his wife, who is a teacher, felt no need to excuse herself from a trial about pedophilia.
Probably an hour later, as we continued to have deliberation issues, I saw the juror with whom I had the issue send a note for the judge. I felt at this point as though I’d experienced a lot of attempts at intimidation by this guy, so I later decided to write my own note about the fact that he’d continually attempted to deride and undermine me whenever I disagreed with any of his commentary about the case and straight out said that, because I did not agree with his verdicts and saw the evidence differently to the majority of jurors, I was unable to be rational and evidence-based in my approach – specifically due to my sexual assault history.
Well, we were called back into the courtroom and the judge read out the notes. His came before mine, explicitly framed the issues as concerns the entire jury had against me (something that never came across to me) and signed his note as “the jury”, said that I wasn’t rationally considering evidence, was “combative”, and all this other bullshit. I felt completely fucking gaslit as I’d continually provided run downs about why I believed the victim was credible enough for at least some of the charges to be proveable beyond a reasonable doubt and had continually discussed the differences in perspective with others across the duration of the case. Unlike other jurors, I also have published research in the substance use space and had relevant knowledge about the drugs consumed and their effects. When other jurors had made points in the deliberation room, I responded – but exchanges weren’t really tense with anyone but that one guy, who was incredibly passive aggressive and seething in a lot of the interactions he had with me specifically, and no one else in the room suggested that my sexual assault history would make me inappropriate as a juror on the case.
The judge then read my note to her aloud, which included the fact that the juror in question seemingly found irrelevant the sexual assault history disclosed by a second female juror (who agreed with his conclusions about the charges), that this guy was behaving towards me in an intimidating/hostile way across several days, that he insisted someone who’s experienced sexual assault shouldn’t be part of a sexual assault jury, etc.
The judge then abruptly dismissed us as the jury. In a few seconds, weeks just came crashing down. I couldn’t believe that the whole thing could disintegrate because of the falsehood-filled note that this guy had given the judge, or believe that it is unreasonable for victims of such common crimes in the community to bring their experience to a case in terms of things like the complex feelings one has afterwards.
Not only do I obviously feel like this guy made me out to be a psycho but now this woman, who did a lot of what people say one should if they are “the ideal victim” of sexual assault, just went through a potentially extremely traumatic process for something that will now just keep dragging on. The mentality that many on the jury had meant that, in essence, someone could have no real ability to ever experience justice if an alleged sexual assault was perpetrated by people like a current or former partner. I stood up to the hostile juror because I’m not accepting that experiences such as what one feels during or after a sexual assault or how one behaves in an abusive relationship should only be judged by people who don’t know anything about those experiences. They asked us to bring “life experience” and “common sense” to the court, yet look where that’s apparently led.
I already wanted to post about this at the end as I’ve been feeling devastated by juror mythology I heard regarding rape, drug users, abusive relationships, etc. I’m just walking home with my head swimming right now at such an insane conclusion to it all. I feel so many negative things and just wanted to put this out there as I really doubt this is the first disastrous experience anyone reading has had when it comes to court cases about this
Cherry on top: as my view was much in the minority, if the guy hadn’t claimed I’d compromised deliberations by being SAd years ago and raising it once to say that, nah, you aren’t exactly using topnotch cognition afterwards, the judge would have likely acquitted the guy by accepting a majority verdict, anyway. I just can’t fucking believe it all
Comments
Sorry to hear about this. The justice system is a joke.
However I think it was good for the victim this dude is no longer on the jury. Just one holdover can tank the case. Hopefully the next jury will not have an idiot like this.
The reality is that guy was going to hang the jury regardless of the facts. Saved the rest of you some time.
The judge dismissed the jury because it was obvious by then that there would never be a consensus. It didn’t really matter why to the judge.
the judge wanted to get rid of the asshole, not you.
Some guys hope to get on a jury like that just so they play save a rapist. Hopefully he never gets called to another one.
Assuming you’re on a criminal case, the judge can’t accept a majority verdict. It needs to be unanimous. (There may be 1 or 2 states where this isn’t true, but it’s definitely true in 90%+ of the country.) Idk if that makes you feel better?
I’m surprised they didn’t ask beforehand. I was in the pool for a SA case and they asked me if me or anyone close to me had been SAed or accused/convicted of it. They were super thorough.
Yeahhh… As soon as it was revealed that you were a victim of sexual assault, the case was always going to go this way—unless that all happened long long ago enough to satisfy the court that it wasn’t going to overly prejudice you against the accused. If it had come out after the defendant was convicted, he might even have grounds for an appeal or a motion for a new trial.
This is similar to death penalty cases (e.g. during jury selection, if a potential juror says they could never impose the death penalty, they’ll likely be struck from the jury).
Don’t share trauma with men, particularly sexual trauma. They just use it some way or another.
If it was clear to the judge that the two of you would never reach an agreement, and it was going to end in a hung jury, of course he would dismiss the jury. Because at that point, having you all sit in there and argue is a waste of everyone’s time.
The jury result must be unanimous. After getting the notes, the judge decided that:
Both of those things mean the jury is not going to reach a verdict. And it actually doesn’t matter who’s fault that is, no unanimous verdict is no unanimous verdict.
So the trial has to be run again, unless they happened to have an alternative jury, which is unlikely.
I’m sorry you had to deal with that guy, he sounds like an ass.
It sounds like he came in with an agenda and had already made up his mind.
It also sounds like you weren’t objective, and I don’t say that because you are a SA victim, I say that because you were bringing up in discussion what happened in your experience, and in your post you reference your research into alcohol and drug use. Those things aren’t part of the case, you are meant to base it on the information and arguments presented in the courtroom, not on external information.
Regardless its over, and hopefully the jury will be able to reach a verdict next time the trial is run.
He sounds like a rapist himself
I’m surprised you even made it onto the jury. I’ve been on a couple of cases that include sexual assault allegations and in all of them, they’ve specifically asked each juror during selection whether they’ve been a victim in the past, and those people are usually summarily excused.
I don’t think this has as much to do with you as you imagine. Based on your post, I’d dismiss the jury if I were a judge. It has nothing to do with your competence or levelheadedness or anyone being a SA survivor.
A jury that can’t work together peacefully and rationally can’t meet the requirement of a fair trial. We don’t want the accused to be able to appeal a conviction due to the appearance of jury issues. Everyone, including heinous criminals, is entitled to a fair trial.
As much as it’s unfair and sucks, it’s also better for everyone if that awful juror isn’t on any jury anywhere. A new jury is less likely to have a troublemaker, because re-trials cost the taxpayers. The world’s worst juror wasted a lot of time and money, but at least he won’t help the accused evade punishment, accidentally or otherwise.
They should ask potential jurors if they’ve ever been accused of sexual assault and dismiss them if they have because they can’t be impartial.
That guy 100% has raped someone.
I’m so sorry OP. As frustrating as this was, and as much as nobody wants the complainant to have to go through giving evidence again, this sounds like a blessing in disguise for the complainant. She’s got a better chance at justice if it’s tried without an arrogant little so-and-so like that being part of the decision. The case wasn’t halted because of anything you’ve done wrong, this was his actions – being combative, dominating, refusing to listed (sounds like just to women) – so having one less misogynist making the decisions here is a net positive overall.
I know there’s been a lot of stink kicked up around the idea of juryless trials but honestly, the way the law is written for sex crimes in the UK is diabolical, and asking 12 randos with no legal literacy in most cases to make these decisions following the wording of these laws is one of the reasons conviction rates for rape are in the gutter. Judges can give directions on rape myths as much as they like, but given how many women have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime, it’s only logical that men who’ve committed these crimes and not been reported will be called up to serve on such trials. They’re in the perfect prejudiced position to twist the wording of “reasonable belief in consent” and what it means to be absolutely sure of that. We’re still working with laws written by and for men interested in protecting themselves and their property unfortunately.
I’ve been in the field for more than a decade and I think it’s actually a good thing this case ended in mistrial and that this case has be be re-tried.
I feel awful for the victim/survivor that they have to be retraumatized all over again and would likely have to testify again, but she was definitely not going to get a fair shot with that male juror. While it is the defendant who is on trial, in cases like these the victim is also treated like they are too. In sexual assault cases, more often than not the case hinges on the jury’s response to the victim. From what you described, that juror already made up his mind about the case and would likely not consider her testimony and other evidence. He was not keeping an open mind. There would be no consensus for this case and I bet he would’ve tried to either bully others into a not guilty verdict or the case would have ended in a mistrial anyway.
Thank you OP for speaking up, sharing your experience, and holding your ground. I don’t think the judge wasn’t supporting the guy singling you out, I think the judge knew this jury wasn’t going to be able to reach a consensus and that is not your fault.