My first experience with serving on a criminal jury began on April 14, 2009 at the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn, Massachusetts. I was sent up to a courtroom with a group of 90 potential jurors. We were informed that we were being selected for a child pornography case. Lots of moans and worried glances throughout the jury pool.
Over the next several hours the judge called each one of us to the bench and asked us several questions about our willingness to view explicit evidence (yeah!), our impartiality, etc. They had 14 jury spots to fill (12 jurors and 2 alternates). My jury pool number was 70 and I was the last juror chosen -- juror number 14. The alternates are chosen by lot after the trial but before deliberations begin.
I'm changing the names of the principals in the case, even though the entire proceedings are now a matter of public record. A Googling of the actual names revealed almost nothing on the case, so I don't want this page to be the primary information source.
The trial started immediately after jury selection. I'll try to lay out the order of events, as I interpret them, in chronological order:
In January 2006 the defendant, Michael Franklin, posted a Craigslist ad for "Paid Auditions" asking for women 18 years or older. A young woman named Susanna Hearst responded saying she was 18 and giving her height, weight, and a photo. They decided to meet the next day in the lobby of a hotel in Kendall Square in Cambridge. I'm guessing Michael is in his late 30's. The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16, but child pornography is defined below age 18.
Susanna showed Michael a birth certificate and a learner's permit with her picture on it. However, both documents had been altered by Susanna to indicate she was 18. Her actual age at the time was 17 years and 10 months. She did a fair job in altering the birth certificate, but forgot to change the dates given with the signatures at the bottom. Michael was given the birth certificate to keep. This document was later found in his computer bag by the police.
The couple went up to a room and proceeded to make X-rated videos and still photos of themselves. Money probably changed hands. Over the course of the next few weeks the couple met nearly every day and took 65 videos and several hundred digital still photos. We had to view several of these photos and videos in the courtroom with both Susanna and Michael present, which was uncomfortable to say the least.
Susanna testified that during this time period she saw Michael looking through her wallet and that he discovered an un-doctored ID card. She said that they had discussed her age and that "he thought it was hot".
Exactly one month after they first met the Bedford police were called to the Best Western hotel in Bedford because of "illegal activity". They saw Susanna and Michael leaving the hotel and questioned them in the parking lot. One of the officers called in Susanna's information and discovered that she was listed as a runaway from Phoenix. She produced some documents showing that she was in the guardianship of her aunt in Quincy, Mass. It also showed that she was age 17.
According to the testimony of one Bedford police officer, Michael was asked "Do you know how old she is?". And Michael's response was "She's 17". No additional details about this exchange were available.
The police confiscated Michael's laptop and camera but did not arrest him. Both Susanna and Michael drove to the police station and talked with the police. The police report was not available to us as jurors. Susanna and Michael were freed - Susanna into the custody of her (now furious) aunt who forbade her from contacting Michael until her 18th birthday, in just a few weeks.
Sometime later the police obtained a warrant to search Michael's laptop and camera, on which they found the photos and videos of him and Susanna.
On Susanna's 18th birthday Michael picked her up and they started living together, which they did for the most part continuously until the summer of 2008. During this time they had a child.
The relationship soured during 2008 and there was crack cocaine use by both parties. Both Susanna and Michael sought custody of the child in probate court
Up until this point Susanna had not been cooperating with investigations of Michael, even going to the point of perjuring herself -- lying to protect Michael. But now she decided to cooperate with the District Attorney. No doubt the custody battle had something to do with this. A conviction on child pornography charges would not bode well for Michael's child custody battle.
One juror was excused during the trial because she realized she knew one of the witnesses. One juror was appointed foreperson and one was chosen as an alternate. The alternate had to sit in a room by himself while the remaining 12 jurors deliberated. If one of the 12 were to drop out then he would step in and deliberations would start again.
During deliberations we were locked in a room from about 9:00 am until 4:30 pm. Luckily there was a bathroom in the jury room, but the only other time we got to leave was when we lined up to file into the courtroom to receive instructions from the judge
The jury was a real cross-section of the population, but what struck me the most was the seriousness with which they all took their job as jurors. There were arguments, of course, but we were always civil and always were careful to give everyone their say. We were also very careful about what constituted evidence and what the legal criteria for a conviction were.
We deliberated for about 5 hours on Friday and we adjourned for a long weekend with a 6-6 split. On Tuesday we reassembled for a full day of deliberations
Among the many criteria for a 'guilty' verdict was the requirement that we find that the defendant "knew or reasonably should have known" that the subject of his photos and videos was under the age of 18. The "should have known" part comes down to whether or not Michael did due diligence in accepting Susanna's forged documents. Some jurors claimed this documentation was adequate, and some claimed it wasn't. Some claimed that they wouldn't have noticed the discrepancy in the dates of the birth certificate (I don't think I would have) and others saw it as plain as day.
The "knew" portion of the statute comes down to:
After many hours of wrangling we ended up with 2 jurors deciding that the DA had shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael "knew or should have known", and 10 jurors convinced that the DA had not. We did agree that the DA did a poor job, and that there were many aspects of her case that were not presented well. A jury decision in a criminal case requires all 12 jurors to be unanimous in their decision.
In the afternoon we sent a note to the judge saying we were deadlocked. She called us all into the courtroom in front of the lawyers and the defendant and told us to reconsider our positions. We were then sent back for more deliberations
After several more hours of arguing we realized we couldn't get the remaining 2 jurors to budge, so we sent another note to the judge announcing a deadlock. This time she responded with a note saying that she could not force us to continue deliberations, and that we could decide amongst ourselves if we wanted to continue. We decided to stop. We found out later that the judge is obligated to allow us to stop deliberations after the second notification of a deadlock.
We filed into the jury box once again and the judge announced a mistrial and that we were released. We went back to the jury room, having failed in our assigned task. This time the judge came with us and talked candidly about the case and answered our legal questions. She tried to cheer us up, saying that this was a difficult case and that she had not expected a quick verdict.
Overall, it was an interesting experience, but not one I want to repeat any time soon. The deliberations with 11 other strangers were grueling, and the narrowness of the allowable evidence was frustrating. For example, there is no gray area when it comes to age -- photos of someone 17 years and 364 days must be treated identically to photos of a 7-year-old for the purposes of the law.