Thank you for your comment. In my view it’s the defense lawyer’s job to go back and explain the underlying assumption to the jurors like you, so that you can be rehabilitated and the prosecutor has to burn a peremptory challenge on you (or leave you on the jury not trusting him).

I know this post is years old, but I served in a jury pool today and was “thanked and dismissed” for not fully agreeing with the “one witness rule”. I couldn’t believe that the court would make me follow a law that assumes one witness is sufficient for a conviction and so I questioned it when I got home and found this thread. I am rather insulted to read posts from prosecutors calling jurors (inexperienced like me) dumb for not understanding the premise of the question. The prosecutor never clarified for me the logical assumption of “if the witness provides testimony that proved beyond a reasonable doubt…” Of course I would’ve said “ok based on that assumption, I agree.” I would’ve still thought to myself “that scenario is unlikely” and I think the prosecution still would’ve striked me because my standards are higher than she would’ve liked. I shouldn’t have to mention that I have a graduate degree in economics and a career as a statistician, but I will just in case anyone needs my pedigree. Obviously I am intelligent and inquisitive enough to go home and do some research about my experience today. I also do not watch CSI and am not religious, but I do work in a quantitative and analytical profession. I don’t need DNA for every instance, it depends on the case. But I would, in most circumstances, need more than a single witness to convict. That also depends on the witness and there qualifications…

The way I interpreted the question was in response to what I believed was the DA trying to get me to commit to accepting a single witness testimony as “equal to physical evidence” (her words) before I was even exposed to the witness. I didn’t feel comfortable doing that. It felt forced and shady, like she was testing to find out the sheep, looking for jurors who could be fooled, not trusted to make sound conclusions. Little did I know that I was in fact made to be “the fool who does not understand reasonable doubt”! I actually had no idea that I had been asked a trick question or misinterpreted the question until I looked it up. As a person with a high expectation of integrity for myself and the law, I think it was a very cheap technique and I feel cheated from fully representing myself as someone who can follow the law and make a logical decision based on facts and evidence. It scared me too and now I have distrust in the judiciary process. Another thing that bugs me: the judge had named the witnesses in the trial and there were 3, so I wouldn’t have even had to convict based on a single testimony.
I work in a field that is never an exact science but strives to provide the most accurate data possible as a public good. And this is done through consistent practices and careful techniques applied at every stage. I am totally confused that what I read here is standard practice and even celebrated as a technique towards fairness. Maybe I am a fool for trusting too much. I have reinforced why I chose to study economics and mathematics and not law as I had originally pursued in college. I took a couple of business law classes and realized it’s not at all about finding the truth, but about finding a loophole to win.

Thanks for all of the information and insight into selecting a jury. I learned a lot and next time if I am chosen, I will be better prepared not to be made the court jester. However I doubt that a more prepared jury pool is a benefit to the prosecution.

“The job of the State’s attorney is to seek justice, and if we’re trying a case it is because justice demands a conviction.”

“Ann.Tex.Const. Art.5, Sec. 21. “The overwhelming importance of the offices of public prosecutors arises from the fact that upon the prosecuting attorney rests the power of determining whether prosecution in any given case shall be inaugurated, or, if inaugurated, pushed to a successful conclusion.”

Maybe it’s me, but when did “successful conclusion,” which could mean an acquittal as well as a conviction, change to “demands a conviction?” I’ve googled it and come up empty?? Black’s Law was no help either?

Any help?

Mark writes a post and he gets a one-act play written about him.

Right now my brain hurts so I’m emailing AHCL to have the beer instead of Mark.

First, great job. You write dialogue quite well, truth be told. (I felt the cops, in particular, were written true to life.) Second, the Houston Chronicle published the salaries of District Attorneys so we know how much you guys make, and it seems to be more than $60,000 for many of y’all. Third, even $60,000 is a heck of a lot more than many attorneys make, particularly legal aid attorneys and the like. Fourth, you’ve described a great world, if a bit exaggerated. Whatever makes you think I would have wanted the story to end with a guilty verdict!!?

Let this be a lesson: living by principles (and constitutional norms) does require inconveniences. It may even require guilty people to go free! Didn’t somebody once say something about that?

I can’t wait for 2019 and the Police Liability Act! Hopefully Bennett’s already got a draft.

Scene I
A convenience store, daytime, the year 2021. PJ is calling 911.

PJ: Help, I’ve just been robbed at gunpoint!
911: I’m sending the police. It could be a while.
PJ: Can you please make sure to send some honest officers? I can’t stand it their constant lying.
911: Excuse me?
PJ: Um, never mind. Just hurry up!

(An hour and a half later)
Sgt: What seems to be the problem?
PJ: A guy just robbed me at gunpoint! I can give you a description. He took everything in the safe!
Sgt: Were there any other witnesses?
PJ: I — I don’t think so.
Sgt: Well, I’m sorry, sir, but we can’t really do anything with just your testimony. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence. Ever since Gov. Bennett signed the Biblical Evidence Act of 2019, we’ve needed at least 2 witnesses for everything.
PJ: Are you kidding? The guy just stuck a gun in my face! Are we going back to stoning? That’s in the Bible, too!
Sgt: Just the facts, sir. Do you have any security cameras?
PJ: No, I was using the system to upload something to YouTube.
Sgt: What about DNA, do you think the guy left any?
PJ: I doubt it. How would I know?
Sgt: Sir, there’s nothing I can —
Robert Guest: Wait a minute, I’m a witness!
Sgt: Huh?
Guest: I was hiding behind the corn-nuts. I saw the whole thing!
Sgt: Got lucky on that one. SCTexas! Get over here!
Ofc. SCTexas: Sarge?
Sgt: Get descriptions from both these guys and put it out on the radio. Then do a sweep of the area.

(Ten minutes later)
Ofc. SCTexas: (bringing in Defendant) Sarge, I got him! Fits the description perfectly!
PJ: That’s him! I recognize him! No doubt in my mind.
Sgt: (to RG) What about you?
Guest: Yeah, I think that’s him.
Grits-For-Breakfast: (bursting in, out of breath) I saw the whole thing. Worst case of police brutality and harrassment I’ve ever seen! This guy just grabbed him off the street for no reason!
Ofc. Texas: He fit the description! They just IDed him!
Grits: You can’t intimidate me with your Gestapo tactics. You don’t attend UT without graduating and not learn something about courage.
Ofc. Texas: You’re nuts! Get out of here!
Sgt: Not so fast, Texas. We have to put his name in the offense report. Or else we could get sued.
Ofc. Texas: But he didn’t see anything! He didn’t witness the robbery or anything to do with it. He was digging in a dumpster, for crying out loud!
Grits: That dumpster provided the perfect cover. And besides, there was a perfectly good cheeseburger in there, barely touched–
Sgt: Doesn’t matter. Ever since Gov. Bennett signed the Police Liability Act of 2019, our asses are in a sling. Take his name down.
(a few minutes later)
Sgt: (to Defendant) Okay, pal, we’ve got your ID info. You’re free to go.
PJ: What? Aren’t you going to arrest him? He just robbed me?
Sgt: I don’t know where you grew up, son, but around here we have something called the presumption of innocence.
PJ: That’s for the courtroom! He just robbed me! He had a gun! He’s a dangerous criminal!
Sgt: It’s not our place to decide that. That’s what juries are for.
PJ: Aren’t you going to at least search him for evidence? He might still be armed.
Ofc. Texas: Already checked. No gun. But he did have THIS (holding up bankers bag)
PJ: That’s my money!
Sgt: (to Texas) Make a note of that. (Handing bag to Defendant) You’re free to go.
PJ: You’re letting him have it?
Sgt: We don’t have an authorized forfeiture order for it. Ever heard of the 4th Amendment? That’s considered an unreasonable search and seizure now. And besides, how do we know it’s yours?
PJ: Because the bag says “PJ’s PrestoMart” on the side.
Ofc. Texas: He’s got a point, Sarge.
Sgt: Alright, then. (Opens bag, empties $17500 in bills out and hands money to Defendant, then hands bag to PJ) You’re free to go.
PJ: But that’s my money!
Sgt: A jury will have to decide that, pal. Everything in its place.

Scene II
A grand jury room

ADA: And, so, ladies and gentlemen, I would respectfully submit that it is possible there could be probable cause to indict Mr. Defendant for the offense of Aggravated Robbery.
GJ Foreman: So he did it?
ADA: I can’t really comment on that.
GJ Foreman: But you’re saying that the evidence supports a conviction, right?
ADA: It’s not my job to decide that, sir.
GJ Foreman: But aren’t you supposed to see that justice is done? What does that mean in this case…a truebill?
ADA: In the old days we used to ask for truebills, but I can’t really do that now. Ever since Gov. Bennett modified the C.C.P. 2.01 and changed the annotations to the Constitution. We used to be able to ensure that cases were “pushed to a successful conclusion,” but now we just let juries decide.
GJ Foreman: You guys are the biggest bunch of wussies I’ve ever seen. Absolutely pathetic.
ADA: Thank you, sir.

Scene III
A courtroom

PJ: Are you the prosecutor handling my case?
ADA: Are you a defendant?
PJ: No, I’m a victim. I got robbed and the guy is being tried today. You sent me a subpoena.
ADA: Sorry, just thrown off by your terminology. It’s not really “your” case. It’s his, since his liberty is at stake and his rights are the focus.
PJ: Fine. So, we’ve never talked. Did you want to ask me anything before putting me on the stand?
ADA: No, not really. The evidence is the evidence. I’m just going to present it and let the jury sort it out.
PJ: But don’t you want to prepare me?
ADA: That could be considered “woodshedding” and is specifically prohibited by C.C.P. 36.051, “State Shall Not Woodshed.” Don’t you remember? Gov. Bennett pushed that one through.
PJ: Which Gov. Bennett?
ADA: Jennifer. She beat Mark to it.
PJ: But what about my rights as a crime victim? Don’t I get any say in what happens here?
ADA: (laughs grimly) They repealed Sec. 30 of the Texas Bill of Rights years ago. Nobody has any rights anymore except defendants.
PJ: So how is the case looking?
ADA: Not so great. He’s got a hotshot defense attorney — ex-DA, I think. I had to turn over data on other aggravated robberies in Houston to him. There were 116 convenience store robberies in the last 2 years involving suspects with the same general descriptors as this defendant and the same m.o.
PJ: M.O.?
ADA: Yeah, they all pointed a gun at the clerk and demanded money. And they were all males. Pretty eerie, huh? Some were committed while this defendant was serving time for another aggravated robbery he committed out of state. So they’re going to argue mistaken identity.
PJ: But there’s no doubt in my mind he did it. They’re not suggesting some other dude committed all of these robberies, are they? That’s ridiculous.
ADA: Sure they are. And I had to turn the data over. 116 other robberies is pretty powerful stuff.
PJ: 116 robberies is living in Houston! And didn’t they convict any of these other robbers?
ADA: Actually, no. That’s pretty rare nowadays.
PJ: But that’s totally irrelevant to my case!
ADA: –His case.
PJ: –Whatever, the point is, you should object!
That’s not relevant and not exculpatory!
ADA: Sorry, but I can’t take that chance. The Prosecutor Accoutability Act of 2018 says I can go to prison for hiding or even objecting to exculpatory evidence — that’s in addition to civil liability.
PJ: Then why are you prosecuting? Why would anyone want to do what you do?
ADA: Beats me. Especially for $60,000 a year. I’ve got an application in to cosmetic school.
PJ: My God, is that the jury panel? Some of those folks look pretty rough.
ADA: Yeah. Too bad I don’t get any strikes anymore.
PJ: Do you want me to draw a scene diagram, something to show the jury?
ADA: No, that could be construed as advocating for one side or the other. That would be a gross violation of my ethical duties.

(A few hours later. Closing arguments have begun and the defense is up.)

Def Atty Tarian: Members of the jury, this case is a complete farce. You’ve heard that 116 other robberies were committed in Houston in the last 2 years with the same m.o. by a male fitting the description of my client. Using sophisticated statistical analysis, that means there is less than a 1% chance that my client is guilty! In essence, I have proven him innocent beyond a reasonable doubt! Clearly, we have a serial robber at work. But that person is not my client. What we have here is a case of mistaken identity. And you are being asked to send a man to prison based on the feeble testimony of that man! (indicating)
PJ: But I saw him!
Judge Ollie: Order! Bailiff, if that man makes another outburst, I want him removed.
Dep. AHCL: Yes, sir.
Def Atty Tarian: As you know from my experts, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. There are thousands, maybe millions of innocent people in prison as a result of it. And millions more convicted every day. But not today. (standing behind Defendant) Not this man. The travesty ends today. You’re going to end it. With your verdict of Not Guilty. (sits down)
ADA: Members of the jury, you have seen all the evidence. I can’t really tell you what you should do based on that evidence, but it definitely supports the fact that an aggravated robbery took place. I ask that you take everything you’ve heard into consideration and render a verdict that is just. Unfortunately, I’m not really allowed to define what “just” would be in this case. Thank you.
(sits down)
PJ: What about a plea for law enforcement? What about arguing for your side?
ADA: My only side is the side of justice — whatever that is. And we’re not allowed to plea for law enforcement anymore. It’s not my place.

(2 1/2 minutes later)
Judge Ollie: Has the jury reached a verdict?
Foreman: We have, Your Honor.
Judge Ollie: Please hand it to the bailiff. And, bailiff, please pass out my cards to the jury.
Dep. AHCL: Here ya go. Man I need a beer.
Judge Ollie: The verdict reads as follows, “We the jury, find the Defendant Not Guilty. Signed, “WTF??? Foreman.”
PJ: This is an outrage!
Def Atty Tarian: If you think this is bad, wait until you see the lawsuit my client is going to file against you.
PJ: But I’m already on the verge of bankruptcy!
Def Atty Tarian: Maybe Ron in Houston can help. Oh, no, I guess he does mostly family law stuff. Oh, well. Sucks to be you!

THE END

When the prosecutors have managed to convince the courts to ignore the last of our constitutional protections (with the consent of the majority, no doubt, if you seek it), that’s what we’ll have.

Innocent people who are harmed by the government’s violation of the constitutional rules don’t get to complain about it in the government’s courts because the government has made itself virtually immune to suit in those courts.

The founders didn’t get together and say, “hey, now that we’ve kicked out the Crown, a government would sure be a good idea; let’s make one.” They got together and said in effect, “now that we’ve kicked out the crown, some sort of government is inevitable; since it’s going to happen, let’s make it as ineffectual as we can.”

Unfortunately, governments have learned to use fear to get the people to do their bidding. There’s little hope that the People, so manipulated, will turn things around before the last Constitutional right has been declared quaint and old-fashioned.