The Silken Tent My Letter to the World September, 1999

I had an appointment downtown last week. As I drove down Route 39 and swung south at the river I listened to part of 97.3's morning mini-concert, featuring The Grateful Dead. I picked it up in time to listen to most of  "Touch of Gray," and then "Truckin'" -- Sometime's the light's all shinin' on me. Other times I can barely see. Lately it occurs to me -- what a lo-o-o-ng strange trip it's been. It was stop and go drive time, and I sang along -- loudly and with gusto, as I was alone -- and before I knew it I was about to pull into the courthouse garage, three blocks beyond where I wanted to be.

In the days following the end of Tammy vs. Larry I thought about the whole experience almost constantly. I was bothered by fears that we'd made the wrong decision. I was equally troubled that we hadn't.

I'd wanted to uphold the doctrine that women don't make these things up, that they don't falsely accuse a man of a sex crime to exact retribution for something else. I'd wanted to hand Tammy the justice she sought, even though I knew nothing could erase the pain of what had happened and the ordeal of the ensuing fifteen months. I'd wanted to send a message to men who will toy with young women's psyches, who will take advantage of their raging emotions and their lack of judgment. I'd wanted him to be guilty. But the evidence didn't support that, and I had no choice.

If we were right, it meant that a man had been falsely accused and had seen his life and those of his loved ones probed and disrupted, his reputation stained, his resources spent on an effective but no doubt expensive defense for something he had not done. And it meant that one more woman had made it just a little harder for others who are truly victimized to be taken seriously.

Although the trial had ended early on Friday afternoon, nothing appeared in the paper until Sunday. I suspect this was because few people even in the city read the paper on Saturday, and those in Larry and Tammy's tiny upriver hamlet probably see only Sunday's.

The story was a nine-paragraph bylined item that misidentified the judge and noted that the original charge had been attempted rape and attempted sexual assault, charges which were dismissed before the trial. The article contained this sentence:

"[The defense attorney] was able to produce information indicating the woman was wrong about physical characteristics of [the] property because of renovations made . . . after the date of the alleged assault."

I called the reporter who, to my surprise, was available to talk to me in the middle of a Monday morning. I pointed out the poor logic in the paragraph about the renovations, and he agreed that he had probably misunderstood the lawyer. I asked him if he had attended the trial. He said he had not. I asked him if he had interviewed anyone besides the defense attorney. He said he had not. I thanked him for his time, and then sent by e-mail the following letter to the editor:

[I summarize the article and quote the material noted above]

I was a juror in that case. It was established that the woman had visited the property in the company of others several times over many months. The testimony I heard indicated that the renovations had been made BEFORE the date of the alleged assault but AFTER the last of the woman’s visits that could be corroborated. Thus, although she was familiar with the property, she was describing physical characteristics of it that no longer existed on the night in question. [The reporter's article] is misleading because any renovations made to the property AFTER the alleged assault would be irrelevant.

[The reporter] quotes the defense attorney thus: “Not only was he [the defendant] found not guilty, but the victim was found not to have any credibility.” The only public statement that the jury made was the return of a verdict of not guilty on both of the charges. No statement was made in court by the jury about the victim’s credibility.

I cannot speak for other jurors, I can speak only for myself. For me, the case turned on reasonable doubt caused by the inability of the prosecution to prove that the woman visited the accused’s property on the night in question. I judged not so much the woman’s credibility as I did the evidence placed before me, a course of action consistent with the judge’s instructions and charge.

I spoke to [the reporter] regarding his report of this case. He told me that he had not attended the trial himself, but based his article only on an interview with the defense attorney. [The reporter] admitted that he might have misunderstood the attorney regarding when the renovations to the property were made. Given that, it is also possible that he is quoting the attorney inaccurately or out of context.

This was my first experience as a juror. Like a lot of people, I went into it reluctantly, since jury duty requires no small measure of sacrifice and inconvenience. It also requires attention to testimony which can be lengthy and complicated, the setting aside of preconceived ideas in order to let the facts speak, and ultimately the judging of another human being when the judgment really counts. This is an enormous responsibility. . . .

Unlike [your reporter], I was a witness to everything that happened in the courtroom regarding this particular trial. I would suggest that if a trial is important enough to be reported in a nine-paragraph by-lined article, that report should be written by someone who also was there.

I continue to ponder my feelings in this matter, and I know that my anger with the newspaper's mangled reporting is a way to work those feelings out. As was writing these pieces. I need to move on now, at least a little way.