State v. Joseph Chambers

[tazlah]

...the current breakdow of the 9 jurors:

Black female: 1
White male: 5
White female: 2
East Indian female: 1

What is the race of the defendent?

[Justice Hog]

Question on the material witness thing. This might sound dumb, but I have never really understood what 'Material Witness' really means.

A "material witness" is simply a witness that the State must have to prosecute the case. Without that witness, there is no case.

[Justice Hog]

What is the race of the defendent?

The defendant is a black male.

[tazlah]

A "material witness" is simply a witness that the State must have to prosecute the case. Without that witness, there is no case.

You stated issuing material witness warrants for the "drunk crack-whore" and the "gangsta wannabe" (oops, I mean "Witness #1" and "Witness #2") -- so now they are detained until they testify. What happens if they refuse to speak on the stand? And, are they detained in regular lock-up?

Thanks for the insight, Fran.

[Justice Hog]

The two people being held on "material witness" warrants will be detained until they testify. They will then be released.

If they refuse to speak on the stand, we'll ask them a couple of questions to lay the necessary "foundation" to have their prior taped statements admitted.

Oh...and...yes....they are detained in the regular prison.

Yeah, not really good to be them right about now.

[Justice Hog]

Jury Selection - Day Three

Okay, today we met with 24 jurors and finished selecting our 12 person jury...along with 4 "alternate" jurors.

FYI, for those of you that don't know much about the "system", we always select "alternate jurors" just in case, for some reason or another, one of our "main" jurors is unable to finish the trial.

All of the alternates watch the entire trial. Once everything has ended, they are usually "excused" right before deliberations begin.

Here is the break down of the jury:

Main
White/Male: 6
White/Female: 3
Black/Male: 0
Black/Female: 2
East Indian/Female: 1

Alternate
White/Male: 2
White/Female: 1
Black/Male: 0
Black/Female: 1

We will now be "off" until Tuesday, March 15th...which is the day this trial is scheduled to begin.

I'll check back in Tuesday night.

[skinsfan1]

Any chance for A last minute plea bargain?

[tazlah]

Here is the break down of the jury:

Main
White/Male: 6
White/Female: 3
Black/Male: 0
Black/Female: 2
East Indian/Female: 1

Alternate
White/Male: 2
White/Female: 1
Black/Male: 0
Black/Female: 1

With no black male representation on either the main or alt jury, how is that considered a "jury of his peers"?

[cvillehog]

What kind of defense is he mounting?

[joebagadonuts]

Here is the break down of the jury:

Main
White/Male: 6
White/Female: 3
Black/Male: 0
Black/Female: 2
East Indian/Female: 1

Alternate
White/Male: 2
White/Female: 1
Black/Male: 0
Black/Female: 1

With no black male representation on either the main or alt jury, how is that considered a "jury of his peers"?

great question.

[Justice Hog]

As for his "peers"....that is defined as: "one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status."

While there are no black males on the jury, I think it fairly represents the community...and...remember....the defense picked this jury, too, not just the State.

As for a plea bargain...I can't discuss that...but you should assume I'll be writing more next week.

I also can't discuss possible defenses....but I think I may have already hinted to you about the State's weaknesses...which may be sufficient.

[welch]

Fascinating, JH.

By the way, what is the age-breakdown of the jury?

I had always heard that juries were made mostly from retired people who easily found the extra time to serve, and liked the excitement.

However, I have served on juries twice in New York: once in Federal court and once in the State Supreme Court, which is the regular criminal court your see on "Law and Order" (although the murals in most court-rooms are faded and peeling, unlike the courtroom they use on TV.)

Both times, our total jury pool had an ordinary range of ages. Like me, people seemed to feel a sort of patriotic/civic duty to serve.

What is your jury like?

[tazlah]

As for his "peers"....that is defined as: "one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status."

While there are no black males on the jury, I think it fairly represents the community...and...remember....the defense picked this jury, too, not just the State.

Thanks. Probably a common "misconception" of "jury of one's peers". And yes, when I asked, I had conceded the defence helped picked the jury -- hence part of the curiosity.

Welch, good question about age.

[Justice Hog]

Sorry...didn't see the age question.

I'd say most of the jurors are 35-45 range. A couple are younger. One or two may be older.

And...in my experience...I think people that serve on juries take their jobs very very seriously and truly desire to perform their duty to the best of their abilities.

I was juror #2 on a Murder 1 jury long long ago and I thought it was a great experience (especially considering what I am doing now). Back then, I was a disgruntled postal employee...but they still let me on the jury.

Honestly, I think it's a good jury all around. We'll see. We start today!

[Justice Hog]

TRIAL - DAY ONE

Okay, we finally started trial today. After opening statements by both the State and Defense, I handled the first 4 witnesses for the State. My co-counsel, and lead-chair, handled the 5th witness today...and then we wrapped it up. Here is what happened today:

Civilian Witness #1
This witness testified that she heard several gunshots on the date and time of the murder. She said she heard 5-6 coming from nearby her house. She called 9-1-1 and the police responded to the area to check it out. She testified she was then told later on that the area was clear.

Police Witness #1
This officer testified that she responded to the neighborhood on a "shots fired" complaint. She checked the park area behind the reporting person's home as well as the area surrounding the reporting person's home. Nothing was found; therefore, she cleared the area.

Civilian Witness #2
This witness testified that he woke up on the morning of the murder...went to his back yard to rake some leaves and found a dead body at the rear of his yard by a path. He didn't disturb the body and didn't know who it was. He immediately called 9-1-1 and the police reponded the scene.

Police Witness #2
This officer testified that he arrived to the scene around 12:30 p.m. and was met by the MEDICS already there. He was pointed to the body...which was already determined to be dead. He then secured the scene (not letting any civilians in/out) and contacted detectives for follow up. He stayed at the scene several hours until he was relieved by detectives. His main job was to "secure the scene".

Police Witness #3
This officer was the Evidence Technician assigned to the case. [For those of you that are CSI fans, this is the dude.] He took photographs of the scene, videotaped the crime scene, searched (and found) several shell casings and other miscellaneous stuff. Many pictures were admitted into evidence through this person, as well as the sweatshirt that was worn by the victim on the night of the murder.

That was it for today. Tomorrow is when the fun begins...when we start calling the "BIG 3" of our civilian witnesses!

[Justice Hog]

Because I relay today's events, I need to fill you out on what happened. Remember in previous threads where I informed you that we "locked up" two of our witnesses on material witness warrants? Well, the prison, God Bless them, let one out by mistake! He was released on Friday!! Fortunately...he showed up today....but:

TRIAL - DAY TWO

Today was an interesting day. This was a pretty eventful day as well, read on:

Expert Witness #1
Out of the gate we called a firearms/ballistics expert to testify. He started off my simply telling the jury how a semi-automatic handgun works. He then went on to state how he is able to examine casings and bullets to determine the likelihood of them being fired from the same gun. He then testified that the 3 shell casings found were "cycled" through the same gun; however, because he didn't have the actual gun, he couldn't conclusive state they were "fired" from the same gun. He also testified that the bullets examined (which were found inside the victim) were fired from the same gun.

Expert Witness #2
Next was the medical examiner who did the autopsy on the victim. She testified that the victim was shot 7 times. Twice in the head. Once in the hip. Four times in the back. The shots to the back were, more likely than not, the fatal shots since they went through the victim's lung...and heart. Two bullets didn't come out of the victim, instead lodging in the shoulders. The doctor testified that this was likely caused by the victim laying down against something at the time he was shot. (In other words, the victim was probably already laying on the ground when he was shot a few more times in the back.)

Civilian Witness #3
This is where the fun began. This was the guy who gave 7+ different versions of the story before he finally gave the story to the police implicating defendant. Before going on the stand, he was telling us that we should just "lock him up" again because he wasn't going to testify. After calming him down a bit, we learned that he was very concerned for his and his family's safety; therefore, he didn't want to testify. We discussed this with him...and he then appeared ready to go. That is.....until he took the stand. Once he took the stand, he saw the people in the courtroom (including the defendant's 2 "big" brothers in the back row...who were glaring at him), and he just clammed up. He stated that the story he told us before was false and that he just said that to get the police off of his back. He refused to give any statements on the stand and was very adversarial. Finally, we stopped questioning him. The jury was excused. We then informed the Court that he was released from prison by mistake and had him (once again) taken into custody. He was then taken downstairs to the "lock up" area. Once down there, he sent a message upstairs that he wanted to speak with our detective. The detective went down to see him and was informed that he "wanted" to testify truthfully; however, because of the 2 guys in the courtroom, he was just too scared...because they were glaring at him. We then informed the judge of this and had those 2 guys expelled from the courtroom. The witness then came upstairs and this is what he said:

He was hanging out with the defendant on the night of the murder, with another person (Civilian Witness #5). While in a car, smoking weed, defendant said, "I got a problem with [victim's name]. [Victim] stole some weed from me." The 3 guys just hung out for a while when the defendant said he needed to go home and "get something". The defendant then asked the 2 guys to meet him by "the path" between two adjoining neighborhoods. [Note: The "path" is where the victim's body was found.] The two guys then went to the local Gulf station to buy some "blunts" and then went over to the next neighborhood by the "path" and waited. Defendant then came running from the "path" (from the area where the victim was shot dead) and jumped into the car. He then said, "I just shot [victim]...we have to get outta here." All three guys then drove to Philly and went to a strip club. On the way up, the defendant chucked the gun (inside his hoody sweatshirt) out of the car window...somewhere on I-95. Later on, all 3 guys returned to Delaware...only to then drive up to New York City to get some drugs. They returned the following night.

This was our first witness that actually suggested to the jury who the shooter was. Evidence showed that he lied a lot during the early part of the investigation.

To be continued....

[Redskins Rule]

Geez, Justice Hog....sounds like your dealing with a pretty cold hearted person right there. Shooting the guy a few more times when he's laying down probably already dead. Seems like he even planned the murder. By telling his friends to wait for him. He's one sick person.

I wish you the best in bringing this guy to justice.

[hailskins666]

Geez, Justice Hog....sounds like your dealing with a pretty cold hearted person right there. Shooting the guy a few more times when he's laying down probably already dead. Seems like he even planned the murder. By telling his friends to wait for him. He's one sick person.

I wish you the best in bringing this guy to justice.

yea, if you call it that. i hope that if i ever do something to get shot, that the shooter has the common courtesy to make sure i'm gone, instead of ending up as a human vegetable. i think it was a commendable effort.

[tcwest10]

Hey...if you're gonna do something, do it right.

[hailskins666]

exactly.

[Redskins Rule]

I don't know hailskins.....me personally would rather live and tell the "war story" in a bar or something. Getting shot would make a good beer drinking story.

[hailskins666]

but still, a choice between one of those wheelchairs that you operate with your chin, or death..... what would you choose? me personaly.... lay me out!

[Justice Hog]

My apologies for posting this late. Last night, I went out and got stinking drunk in celebration of my favorite holiday of the year. Two shots of Jameson, two beers, and four Irish Car Bombs later.....I'm now in intense hangover mode. Here's what happened yesterday:

TRIAL - DAY THREE

Civilian Witness #4
I formally listed this guy as witness #5, however, we called him early...so now he is #4. This was a very good friend of the defendant at the time of the shooting. He testified that on the night in question, he was hanging out with defendant and civilian witness #3. They were hanging by the car, playing music, smoking marijuana...chillin'. Eventually, defendant left...telling them "I gotta do something. Meet me over [in the next neighborhood] by the path in a few minutes." Defendant left and the 2 other guys drove away. Eventually, they got over by the path [near where the victim was shot]. Defendant came running out from the path "all frantic like" and jumped in the car. This witness then heard him say, "He wouldn't go down. I had to step over him." They all then sped off towards Philly. On the way, the rear window came down and something was thrown out. Later in the morning, they returned to DE. A day or so later, this witness spoke with defendant and defendant said, "He disrespected me. I had to handle my business."

This guy is an admitted drug dealer...and had the quote of the trial. When asked by the defense attorney if he was familiar with guns, he responded, "Yes...I've seen the history channel..so I'm familiar." Priceless.

Civilian Witness #5
This was a woman who smokes crack and was drinking on the night of the murder. She testified that around midnight, she walked up to the liquor store...for a booz run...and saw the victim and defendant arguing. She later returned home...and got home by around 1:30 a.m. [apparently, it is common for people to hang out by the liquor store drinking outside...which is what she did]. She remained home and continued to drink. She testified that she was drinking gin and beer...and smoked crack earlier in the day. She also testified, however, that although she was drinking a lot...she still had the ability to perceive what was going on around her. At about 3:00 a.m., she saw the victim standing by her house. She came outside and asked the victim to get her some drugs [crack]. The victim told her he was waiting for his "connection" but that he would hook her up later. Victim then walked into the park area. Minutes later, this witness saw the defendant following the victim. The defendant looked at this witness, freaking her out, so she went back inside. Around 4:00 a.m., this witness once again saw victim and defendant standing across the street from her house arguing. She then saw victim walk towards the path [where he was eventually found dead]...closely followed by the defendant. This is the last time she saw the victim alive.

Expert Witness #3
This was a shoe print expert. He testified that the stain on the back of the sweatshirt pulled off of the victim was a shoe print. He stated that it was a "negative impression" print which could only be made by someone "stepping" on the sweatshirt. He compared the print to a lot of shoes he received...and none matched. He also compared the print to the victim's boots, and they didn't match.

This guy's testimony is important because it shows that after the defendant shot the victim 7 times, he stepped on his body to jump the fence to run away from the area.

The State will probably finish its case on Friday.

[Justice Hog]

TRIAL - DAY FOUR

Chief Investigating Officer
Today the C.I.O. was called to testify simply to re-hash his investigation of this case...which included testifying as to what many witnesses told him (which they already testified to) and other courses of action during the investigation. The defense attorney, in cross-examination, kinda zinged him a little because in support of a search warrant previously signed by this officer, he wrote that Civilian Witness #5 saw another guy - Civilian Witness #4 follow the victim around that morning..and not DEF.

On re-direct examination, this officer stated that Civilian Witness #5 was initially shown a photo line-up of 6 people, including defendant. She picked defendant out of that lineup suggesting that it was him. When she was shown a 2nd line-up of 6 people, including a picture of Civilian Witness #4, she mentioned that it was him. This officer then cleared things up a little when he said that early in the investigation, that while Civilian Witness #5 did, in fact, identify Civilian Witness #4...she changed her mind later in the investigation. Her reasons for doing this were: (a) she had to be "sure" and she wasn't sure until she viewed the photos of Civilian Witness #4 and the Defendant next to each other; and (b) she was concerned about being labled a "snitch".

After this officer testified, the State rested its case.

Trial will resume on Tuesday, March 22nd...when the defense will start its case.

[Justice Hog]

TRIAL - DAY FIVE

Today the State was able to re-open its case to do two things.

First, we entered into evidence a "stipulation" (i.e., an agreement between the State and Defense) that the defendant is a "person prohibited" of possessing a firearm on the date of the murder.

Secondly, we called one final witness:

Civilian Witness #5
This guy lives in the neighborhood where the defendant and two of his friends drove to later in the day of the murder. His testimony was offered simply to corroborate testimony of other witnesses.

With that, the State finally rested its case.

The defense then presented its case.

Defense Civilian Witness #1
This guy said he was living in the same area of the murder when it occured....and "high drug/crime" area. He was good friends with the victim. He said he didn't know about the murder until 12:00 noon that day, when friends stopped by his house and told him.

He said he later spoke to our Civilian Witness #5 and she told him about what she saw that night. According to him, Civilian Witness #5 told him, "I saw who did it. I was somebody I've never seen before."

On cross-examination, this guy talked about what it's like to be labled a "snitch" in the "hood". He said that a few days after talking with Civilian Witness #5, he was standing with her on the street when a car pulled up next to them. Inside the car was defendant. Defendant just looked at both of them...and then drove off. This really scared civilian witness #5 and she went inside of her house.

Chief Investigating Officer
The defense then called our Chief Investigating Officer as a defense witness. He stated that he prepared a search warrant for the defendant's house, and Civilian Witness #4's mother's and girlfriend's house. Those search warrants were executed on 5/1/03. At the girlfriend's house, some marijuana was found; however, it was unknown whether civilian witness #4 was charged with that. He testified that between 5/1/03 and 5/26/03 (the date defendant was arrested), no contact was made with Civilian Witness #4 because, when his places were searched, he refused to give any statement regarding the murder case. He said that Civilian Witness #4 was then, finally, interviewed on 5/27/03 and, after being granted immunity, gave a statement implicating the defendant. The next day, on 5/28/03, the police re-interviewed Civilian Witness #3 and he FINALLY gave a full complete account of what happened on the night of the murder.

After this, the defense played 3 minutes of an audiotape where Civilian Witness #5 picked out defendant in a photo lineup. When she did so, the audiotape showed she wasn't sure about it...but just picked him out because he "looked like the guy."

After the tape was played, the State had another opportunity to question the Chief Investigating Officer. He stated that this initial interview of Civilian Witness #5 occurred only 1 day after the murder. She denied ever knowing the defendant at all then. They conducted a second interview with her later. Once again, she denied ever knowing the defendant. On 5/14/03, the police picked her up near her house a final time and she was hysterical. She was yelling, "You're gonna get me shot" (pointing to a car parked nearby). During the first 15 minutes of this interview, she went on and on about how she felt her life/safety was threatened. After a while, she eventually gave it up and, for the first time, she ID'd defendant and stated that she knew him from before. [This was the first time she ever clearly admitted knowing the defendant.] During this statement, she affirmatively ID'd defendant as the guy who was following the victim around on the night of the murder...and that he was the guy who followed him onto the path where he was ultimately murdered.

With that, the defense rested it's case.

The State did not call any additional witnesses.

The evidence is now "closed".

Closing Arguments will begin tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.. I will be doing the closing argument for the State.

Wish me luck, everyone...please! (I'm gonna need it!)