A Hole In One by Paul Weininger (10 best books of all time txt) 📕

no possibility of parole. In addition, he gets five years for each assault of the other three shooting victims. Take it or leave it,” concluded D.A. Stanford.

“I will discuss the offer with Richard and let the court know before the jury is set to deliberate,” said Jaxson.

After a recess of two hours so he could confer with his client, Defense Attorney Jaxson told D.A. Stanford and Judge Garnett that “Mr. Straub believes he will be exonerated of the murder and refuses to accept the people’s counter. He wishes to continue with the trial.”

Judge Garnett turned toward the jury and stated, “It is my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in deciding this case. After I’ve completed these instructions, you will go to the jury room and begin your deliberations. You must decide if the specific facts necessary to find the defendant guilty of the crime of premeditated murder in the first degree convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt. Your decision must be based solely on the evidence presented here.”

“The law presumes that every defendant is innocent. The defendant does not have to prove his or her innocence or produce any evidence at all. The prosecution must prove guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ and if it fails to do so, you must find the defendant not guilty.”

“What exactly is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? It is proof so convincing that you would be willing to rely and act on it, without hesitation. If you are convinced that the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then find the defendant guilty. If you are not convinced, then find him not guilty.”

“Let’s review once again the rules of evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts that he or she has actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances tending to prove, or disprove, a fact. An example of direct evidence would be when you go outside and notice it is raining. You get a little wet and so you open your umbrella to walk to your car. An example of circumstantial evidence is when you are in your home and hear thunder and lightning outside and hear raindrops hit your windows; you look outside and see that it is raining, though you don’t necessarily get wet. There is no legal difference in the weight you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence.”

“Under the Fifth Amendment, the defendant had a right not to testify. However, since the defendant voluntarily testified in this case, you must decide whether you believe the defendant’s testimony in the same way you evaluated the credibility of all other witnesses.”

“You are now discharged and must go to the jury room to deliberate the testimony, exhibits and defense that were presented before you. Do not return until you have unanimously agreed to a verdict.”

Thirty-Eight

The deliberations began. The jury was comprised of twelve jurors and three alternates. The three alternates did not enter the jury room but would only participate should a regular juror drop out or be dismissed by the court. They were not permitted to listen to the jury’s deliberations so as not to be prematurely influenced. If they did become a juror, they had to learn the truth for themselves or ask questions of the other jurors.

The jurors, referred to by number since their names in this matter were irrelevant. Juror One was assigned by the court to be the foreperson.

As the jury entered the deliberation room, each grabbed a sandwich from a choice of a several different types on a large platter placed on a credenza. They also had choices of cold drinks, regular or diet, hot coffee, or tea, along with muffins, Danishes or bagels with butter or cream cheese. They each chose a seat at a long oval conference table and assumed that this would become their regular seat if deliberations continued into the next day.

Before deliberations began, the forelady handed out eleven index cards to the jurors, keeping a twelfth for herself, and told them to write one word on their card: guilty or innocent regarding murder and nothing else. “Make sure to include your assigned juror number on your card,” she added. Since it was already decided that Straub was guilty of all other infractions, it was only the murder charge that they had to decide, and whether or not it included premeditation.

After the jurors wrote guilty or innocent on their cards, she instructed them to fold the cards in half and return them to her in the basket. “This will be the only secret vote. Do not address each other by name, nor identify your card by name. Use the number you were assigned.”

When the cards were returned to her, she asked juror number two, who sat next to her, to “Please tabulate the votes on the lined pad in front of you. Include all of the ballots, plus your own, and include mine as number one.”

After the votes were counted, Juror One began the conversation: “Since we have seven votes for guilty and five for innocent, why don’t we start with those of you who voted innocent and have you explain to the rest of us why you believe the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt? I will announce my decision last so as not influence anyone due to my being in charge in this room. Juror Four, I see by the card that you voted innocent, so why don’t you start us off?”

Number Four was a woman in her early fifties, a retired schoolteacher and now a part-time librarian, according to the vois dire process.

“I am just not convinced that he murdered anyone. I do believe however, there is something wrong with a man who will do the things he did, but I’m just not convinced he killed the Rabbi, his own twin brother, in cold blood,” she responded.

Number