Intersection of recent WTM topics and jury duty

[Lawana]

I have jury duty this week. As circumstance would have it, I was seated on a 6 person jury to hear the case of a woman charged with the misdemeanor of public indecency. 

 

It seems that this woman was visiting her boyfriend, the father of her child, in the local detention center. During the course of the visit, she raised the skirt of her (long) dress, pulled down her underwear in back, and for a brief fraction of a second, exposed her buttocks to him. She also momentarily exposed an entire leg and the side of her hip. At one point, she stood with her right leg on the visitor's stool and had her underwear down on that side so that it was stretched between the normal position on the left hip and the right ankle. No part of her anatomy was visible from the camera angle, and assuming she was exposing the front genital area (which was in no way established, merely assumed), only someone standing slightly to the side and behind the prisoner could have even the slightest possibility of seeing anything. 

 

A security/monitoring camera was positioned above and slightly to the right and behind her. It was quite clear there was no one else in the visitor's room. Visitor stations were separated from each other by small partitions, and there was glass separating visitors from the inmates. Phone receivers provided the means of voice contact. 

 

There was no allegation made that anyone other than the inmate and the deputy who saw buttocks for less than a second via video feed saw anything.at.all.

 

The deputy monitoring the cameras for the entire facility noticed the event and called his sgt, who then proceeded to arrest her on the charge of public indecency.

 

Result: hung jury. Vote was 5-1 in favor of conviction. Yes, I was the "one". I just can't wrap my head around the idea of prosecuting this one. Can we please spend the taxpayer's money on prosecuting crimes with victims?

 

Or maybe I am hopelessly out of step with what is important in this world.

 

[Flowing Brook]

Did you vote no because you did not think it was public indecency or because you thought it was a waste of time and money?

[Luanne]

I would say it probably is a waste of time and money, but I would also say it was an act of public indecency.  I don't know what the woman was thinking.... maybe she wasn't.

[Kathryn]

What is their definition of "public"?

[Lawana]

Did you vote no because you did not think it was public indecency or because you thought it was a waste of time and money?

Both. I did not think it met the intent of public indecency, because while it was in a publicly owned building, there was no "public" affected. I do not think exposing oneself to one's intimate partner is indecent. And in this case, there was so little actually exposed that I don't think it would warrant the charge no matter who was there.

[Lawana]

What is their definition of "public"?

The judge stipulated that a jail was a "public place". Other than that, they gave no further definition. To my way of thinking public could mean either not privately owned, or a place that is freely accessible to most anybody.

[Lawana]

I would say it probably is a waste of time and money, but I would also say it was an act of public indecency.  I don't know what the woman was thinking.... maybe she wasn't.

Why do you see it that way? There was no one else there.

[Luanne]

I can see the point about "what is public", but it isn't like she was in her bedroom at home.  She wasn't really someplace private.

[elegantlion]

Many jails have very specific dress codes detailed in writing before you enter. You agree to adhere to them or you don't go in. If her act was a violation of the those rules, then yes, she should be charged with public indecency. If you're speeding and no one sees, you're still speeding and you're still breaking the law. 

 

Is there a victim? Probably not. Is it a waste of dollars, yes. Is it more likely the jail is trying to set a precedence about behavior of visitors? Yes. 

[Lawana]

I can see the point about "what is public", but it isn't like she was in her bedroom at home.  She wasn't really someplace private.

So if I go camping on public property, and take my clothes off, and even though there is no one else there except my dh, you would still feel the same way? It's not my bedroom, and there is no guarantee of absolute privacy.

[elegantlion]

Why do you see it that way? There was no one else there.

 

The deputy was there. I'm sure he/she doesn't want to be subject to visitors flashing their loved ones on a regular basis. Yes, it's a "public" place, even if no one else was there. 

[elegantlion]

So if I go camping on public property, and take my clothes off, and even though there is no one else there except my dh, you would still feel the same way? It's not my bedroom, and there is no guarantee of absolute privacy.

 

Depends on if you are in a tent or not. ;) 

[Luanne]

So if I go camping on public property, and take my clothes off, and even though there is no one else there except my dh, you would still feel the same way? It's not my bedroom, and there is no guarantee of absolute privacy.

 

Actually, yes, I would feel the same way. 

[Luanne]

Depends on if you are in a tent or not. ;)

 

What she said!

[Excelsior! Academy]

I would think camping is different. I also want to say I agree with you, but I think it falls under what elegantlion said. Most likely the woman in question agreed to specific dress and behavior to be allowed to visit. That said, a majority of people in jail and some who are visiting are not there due to their stellar decision making abilities.

[Lawana]

Many jails have very specific dress codes detailed in writing before you enter. You agree to adhere to them or you don't go in. If her act was a violation of the those rules, then yes, she should be charged with public indecency. If you're speeding and no one sees, you're still speeding and you're still breaking the law. 

 

Is there a victim? Probably not. Is it a waste of dollars, yes. Is it more likely the jail is trying to set a precedence about behavior of visitors? Yes. 

Agreed about dress code. She clearly violated the dress code. They then have the recourse of kicking her out and prohibiting her from visiting again.

 

Using the speeding analogy, it is like being charged with reckless driving when you are going 5 over the speed limit, instead of being given a simple speeding ticket.

 

As far as setting a precedent, who would know? Just the few that might happen to have verbal contact with the "perp.

[saraha]

So did you have a lot of pressure from the other jurors? The only time I was ever on a jury, there was a lot of pressure to come to a decision. How long did you deliberate before a hung jury was decided?

[happymomofboys]

I think this would be a case where it wouldn't matter how I felt about it, she would be guilty under the law.  She entered a public place and exposed herself, presumably for the pleasure of another person present.  If the same thing happened in a rest area bathroom and an officer walked in on them, it would be public indecency.  I don't really see the difference if she was in a room at the jail where any officer could potentially walk in/see on video at any time.  

[Lawana]

The deputy was there. I'm sure he/she doesn't want to be subject to visitors flashing their loved ones on a regular basis. Yes, it's a "public" place, even if no one else was there. 

Actually, the deputy was viewing it through a monitor. The video had to be studied very closely and intently to make out what precisely happened.The exposure was definitely *not* "in your face".

 

My take is the deputies were overzealous in their handling the situation. And yes, I have worked as a security guard and police dispatcher and am familiar with the psychology of needing to "be in control" of a situation. 

 

but clearly my opinion is in the minority, based on the jury outcome!

[Lawana]

So did you have a lot of pressure from the other jurors? The only time I was ever on a jury, there was a lot of pressure to come to a decision. How long did you deliberate before a hung jury was decided?

Fortunately it was entirely congenial. The other jurors exerted no pressure on me. We deliberated for about 4 hours before declaring to the judge that we were hopelessly deadlocked. He called us in to the court room and instructed us to deliberate further, listen to each other's opinions, etc. But by then, we as jurors all agreed that we had reached the point of just repeating ourselves, so the judge let it stand at that point and declared a mistrial.

 

The jury consisted of 5 women and 1 man. The guy left the minute the judge released us, but we women returned to the jury room to collect our purses and then all walked out together. As we were leaving, the prosecutor stopped us to inquire about how the jury had split, and on hearing it was 5-1, assumed that we 5 women had voted together!

[elegantlion]

Agreed about dress code. She clearly violated the dress code. They then have the recourse of kicking her out and prohibiting her from visiting again.

 

Using the speeding analogy, it is like being charged with reckless driving when you are going 5 over the speed limit, instead of being given a simple speeding ticket.

 

As far as setting a precedent, who would know? Just the few that might happen to have verbal contact with the "perp.

 

Don't inmates talk? I guess it depends on the facility. "Sure, George, just get your woman to flash you some, it's okay, my honey did and she didn't get in trouble." 

 

I don't know what else she could be charged with? Were there other options? 

[Danestress]

Seems like a public place to me. Private places don't have security cameras which have to be viewed by employees.

[alef]

The deputy was there. I'm sure he/she doesn't want to be subject to visitors flashing their loved ones on a regular basis. Yes, it's a "public" place, even if no one else was there. 

 

I agree with this.

[Lawana]

I think this would be a case where it wouldn't matter how I felt about it, she would be guilty under the law.  She entered a public place and exposed herself, presumably for the pleasure of another person present.  If the same thing happened in a rest area bathroom and an officer walked in on them, it would be public indecency.  I don't really see the difference if she was in a room at the jail where any officer could potentially walk in/see on video at any time.  

Georgia state law defining public indecency.

 

It was not established that she exposed her s$xual organs, and they were charging it under a "lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity". 

 

I do not think that what she did fell under that description. It is not indecent to show your partner your stuff! Yes, the venue leaves a lot to be desired and violation of the dress code did happen and should be dealt with, but in a punishment fitting the crime way. Lewd means offensive in a sexual way, does it not? What is offensive is highly subjective. And I have seen much more buttock exposure at the beach. 

 

I was not going for jury nullification here. I applied my reasoning to the law as it existed, and in my opinion, what she did was not in violation of the law.

[Lawana]

Don't inmates talk? I guess it depends on the facility. "Sure, George, just get your woman to flash you some, it's okay, my honey did and she didn't get in trouble." 

 

I don't know what else she could be charged with? Were there other options? 

As I mentioned in another post, she could have and should have been kicked out and prevented from returning. That sends a very clear message without tying up prosecution resources. 

 

I think the solicitor's office should have declined to prosecute, and used their time and resources on crimes with victims.

[Luanne]

It is not indecent to show your partner your stuff... no, but it is indecent to do it in a public place.

[Lawana]

If convicted, what would the consequence be? A fine? Being banned from the facility in the future?

The judge specifically told us we were not to consider the consequences. But I would guess a fine. She has not been allowed to return since, which IMHO should be the extent of her punishment.

[Lawana]

It is not indecent to show your partner your stuff... no, but it is indecent to do it in a public place.

I will have to disagree with you here. It is only indecent if other persons who are likely to be offended are present and have no way of avoiding the issue. 

[Luanne]

Sorry, but I disagree.  If you are in a room full of men and take off all your clothes and they are not offended, it doesn't make it all right.

[Lawana]

Um yeah, I think that is a harsh enough punishment.

 

To me she broke a rule.  If others had seen her, I guess she would have broken a law.  Kinda like, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear does it make a sound.  Who cares?!

 

See, I guess I'd make an annoying jury member.  Hehe

You and me, we think a lot alike!

[Tap]

Based on your link:

 

 

(1) An act of sexual intercourse;

(2) A lewd exposure of the sexual organs;

(3) A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity; or

(4) A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person.

 

1..N/A

2..were the organs seen or not? Can't prove it, so this is unknown- therefore not punishable

3..was there nudity? Yes.  The officer saw a buttock for second and I assume it was shown on.  Doesn't matter how long.  It was done in a lewd manner.   If a man flashed my child for a brief moment, in a lewd manner,I would say he was guilty.  Doesn't matter length of time.  There was a purposeful flash and it was purposefully lewd.  (as opposed to ....if a girls skirt accidentlally flies up in the wind I wouldn't consider it lewd).

4..N/A

 

 

It isn't up to the jury to decide the extent of the flash, or the lewdness of it.  She did it, she was guilty. 

 

 

[goldberry]

As I mentioned in another post, she could have and should have been kicked out and prevented from returning. That sends a very clear message without tying up prosecution resources. 

 

I think the solicitor's office should have declined to prosecute, and used their time and resources on crimes with victims.

 

I agree with this as appropriate.  Charging it as a criminal offense is over the top.  May be applicable to the "letter of the law" but not considering intent and common sense.

[goldberry]

 

 

 

It isn't up to the jury to decide the extent of the flash, or the lewdness of it.  She did it, she was guilty. 

 

This is why I am not comfortable serving on a jury.  I could not enforce the law to the exclusion of good judgment and common sense.  Human life and interaction are not black and white.  Pretending that they are contributes to injustice, in my opinion.

[lea1]

As I mentioned in another post, she could have and should have been kicked out and prevented from returning. That sends a very clear message without tying up prosecution resources. 

 

I think the solicitor's office should have declined to prosecute, and used their time and resources on crimes with victims.

Yep, I agree with this.

[Lawana]

Based on your link:

 

(1) An act of sexual intercourse;

(2) A lewd exposure of the sexual organs;

(3) A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity; or

(4) A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person.

1..N/A

2..were the organs seen or not? Can't prove it, so this is unknown- therefore not punishable

3..was there nudity? Yes. The officer saw a buttock for second and I assume it was shown on. Doesn't matter how long. It was done in a lewd manner. If a man flashed my child for a brief moment, in a lewd manner,I would say he was guilty. Doesn't matter length of time. There was a purposeful flash and it was purposefully lewd. (as opposed to ....if a girls skirt accidentlally flies up in the wind I wouldn't consider it lewd).

4..N/A

 

It isn't up to the jury to decide the extent of the flash, or the lewdness of it. She did it, she was guilty.

I do think it is up to the jury to determine whether brief partial nudity is lewd or not. What is considered lewd will vary among persons. My assessment was under the situation at hand, it was not.

[Lawana]

This is why I am not comfortable serving on a jury. I could not enforce the law to the exclusion of good judgment and common sense. Human life and interaction are not black and white. Pretending that they are contributes to injustice, in my opinion.

And this is exactly why I think you would make a good juror. Would that others agreed.

[Ravin]

Sorry, but I disagree. If you are in a room full of men and take off all your clothes and they are not offended, it doesn't make it all right.

Unless you dance. Then it's protected expression under the first amendment.

[Ravin]

I do think it is up to the jury to determine whether brief partial nudity is lewd or not. What is considered lewd will vary among persons. My assessment was under the situation at hand, it was not.

They would have been given a standard to follow for what constitutes lewdness, but applying the given law to the facts is EXACTLY what a jury is supposed to do.

[Lawana]

The way the law is worded, a judgment must be made whether some action or appearance is lewd. I vehemently disagree with being forced to accept one officer's interpretation alone. That is, IMNSHO, precisely the jury's function. As peers of the accused, to assess the facts of the case, and determine whether a crime was committed, and if so, if the accused did it.

[Tap]

I do think it is up to the jury to determine whether brief partial nudity is lewd or not. What is considered lewd will vary among persons. My assessment was under the situation at hand, it was not.

 

Definition of Lewd

 

Adjective

Crude and offensive in a sexual way.

 

It was offensive to the officer to get flashed by a woman. He didn't ask for it.  It was not an expectation for him when he went to work to be forced to see her butt.  She was preforming for the inmate in a sexual way.  Sorry, but I agree with the other jurors. she was guilty.   It doesn't matter that she only intended for the inmate to see it.  It was in a public place and she in no way should have expected privacy. Someone else did see it, period.  

 

I have no idea what the officer thought of the situation, but it was bad enough that he got his superior involved.  

[Lawana]

 

Definition of Lewd

 

Adjective

Crude and offensive in a sexual way.

 

It was offensive to the officer to get flashed by a woman. He didn't ask for it.  It was not an expectation for him when he went to work to be forced to see her butt.  She was preforming for the inmate in a sexual way.  Sorry, but I agree with the other jurors. she was guilty.   It doesn't matter that she only intended for the inmate to see it.  It was in a public place and she in no way should have expected privacy. Someone else did see it, period.  

 

I have no idea what the officer thought of the situation, but it was bad enough that he got his superior involved.  

 

 

The officer testified. He took action based on her violating the dress code of the jail, not being personally offended. An officer does not get to make decisions based on being personally offended. It should be based on community standards. I am part of the community. My vote counts.

 

ETA the other jurors got to vote too. Obviously we disagreed.

[Ravin]

The standard is probably not based on the individual subjective opinion of the observer.

[TravelingChris]

I would have convicted since according to the GA law about this, it appears to me that the women did commit a lewd act.

  I have never been on a jury. Now that I only have one that I am homeschooling and she is in high school, I could conceivably do it.  (Most of the time I was called to serve, I actually was living out of state at the time since we are military.  THe one time I was called in a state I voted and had DL and no longer had little children, they had us call a number to see if we were needed and we weren't).  But I always doubted they would put me on a jury, at least for criminal matters.  I have a master's in Criminal Justice.  My dh has never done it either since he is still AD and that is an automatic excuse.  He wouldn't have minded doing it sometime, if he could be guaranteed a quick trial. But since they don't do that, he just always had to use the automatic excuse, if he even was living in the state at the time they requested his presence.  Either he or I got a jury summons from California when we were living in Belgium.

[happymomofboys]

As I mentioned in another post, she could have and should have been kicked out and prevented from returning. That sends a very clear message without tying up prosecution resources. 

 

I think the solicitor's office should have declined to prosecute, and used their time and resources on crimes with victims.

 

I actually agree with you here.  In my earlier post I was speaking as if I were on a jury after charges had been filed and gone to trial.  However, I do think our resources are better used elsewhere and the situation could have (arguably should have) been resolved without charges.  That doesn't mean I think she's not guilty of the crime, just that not everything that is technically illegal needs to be prosecuted.

[shanvan]

An interesting POV on your rights when serving on a jury.  There is a POV that you can and should vote your conscience.

 

http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_true_or_false.pdf

[Ravin]

I've got jury duty coming up later this month. I'm kind of hoping I get picked for a short trial. I'll have school interfere if it's long, but it's the city so not that many long trials, I'd think.

[Lawana]

An interesting POV on your rights when serving on a jury. There is a POV that you can and should vote your conscience.

 

http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_true_or_false.pdf

Thank you for sharing that. While I didn't intend to nullify the law, I did make use of what I believed was my right to apply the law. It wasn't easy being the holdout, and while the other jurors did not pressure me to acquiesce to their majority opinion, I spent a lot of energy wondering if there was something wrong with my thinking. Ultimately, I made the decision I could live with.

[Lawana]

I've got jury duty coming up later this month. I'm kind of hoping I get picked for a short trial. I'll have school interfere if it's long, but it's the city so not that many long trials, I'd think.

I've been empaneled on two juries now, and both were short. The first was only 3 hours or so start to finish. For this most recent one, it started before lunch on Monday, and we were done by end of business Tuesday.

[Tap]

I respect that you voted your heart.  But to me, I still think that a peep show in a public place is against the law according to the link provided. 

[Laura Corin]

Many jails have very specific dress codes detailed in writing before you enter. You agree to adhere to them or you don't go in. If her act was a violation of the those rules, then yes, she should be charged with public indecency. If you're speeding and no one sees, you're still speeding and you're still breaking the law. 

 

Is there a victim? Probably not. Is it a waste of dollars, yes. Is it more likely the jail is trying to set a precedence about behavior of visitors? Yes. 

 

Are the jail dress codes laws or just rules?  If they are just rules then they are irrelevant to the charge, although they may interfere with her future visiting.

 

L