x

Home to the Jay Levine Dreamscape Project

"Muy Divertido" -Eds.

Explore it!
x
In July of 1996, Jay Levine sat on the jury of a small criminal case in New York City. It involved two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigated the crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecuted the offenders. These are their stories. DUN DUN!

Jury Duty i (12/15)

July 9, 1996

Choose a different dreamscape

Today we should, by all rights, deliberate. Yesterday, they advised us to bring toothbrush etc. due to the fact that once deliberations commence, there’s no leaving, or talking to anyone else until the decision has been reached. I highly doubt this pertains to the alternates (me). I can’t see them springing for an unnecessary hotel room, meals, etc., but nonetheless I brought a change of undies, dopp kit, etc.

Yesterday, things reached a fever pitch of excitement + drama. Detective Schineider was on the stand and , feeling perhaps that he was a reasonable and capable opponent, the defense really laid into him, pressing hard at any discrepancies in testimony and sometimes pressing to create discrepancies where none really existed. Poor Schneider. I felt bad for him. More so than Shahini who they relatively left alone. For example: It appears that after his work on the case, Schneider applied for recognition; that is, a commendation of some sort – a request probably quite common. Well, in that written request, which the defense had acquired, it listed what Schneider had done to deserve this praise, and one of the things Schneider had listed himself as having done was to “write down all pertinent information.” In reality all Schneder wrote down, at the time, was Shahini’s name + store address. It is, perhaps, this information that he thought of as pertinent. But now the defense had him by the balls. For the prosecution’s whole case relies upon eyewitness testimony and a major controversial element of the trial is that NO NOTES WERE TAKEN concerning description of suspects, dress, etc. by either Shahini or, subsequently, Schneider. A LOT was left to memory. So maybe Schneider saw only Shahini’s address as pertinent, seeing as he assumed he could always get further info from that primary source. HOWEVER, he could hardly admit this in court, seeing as (events evolving) two kids lives now hang in the balance. So. Frankel first asks him: “Do you not see the descriptions as pertinent?”

Schneider: Of course. (he doesn’t see where this is going).
Frankel: And what they were wearing?
Schneider: Absolutely

Frankel then snaps out the request for commendation, written by Schneider, and points out the discrepancy. Schneider tries to feint and parry.

Schneider: But I DID write down the pertinent info. I wrote down his name + address.
Frankel: Did you not just say… etc. etc.
Schneider: Yes, but–
Frankel: So what you meant to write was “pertinent info,” not “all pertinent info.”

That was an exciting exchange.

Today we will begin with reexamination by DA Hayes, then perhaps re-cross by Frankel and/or Dwyer. Then closing arguments, then the looming, ominous Deliberation. And if no verdict is reached by 6pm (?), we head to hotel (or THEY do) for the night.

Some major discrepancies have arisen at this point. It appears that Schneider, if not Shahini, testified that Shahini told him (testified to this at the original grand jury hearing) that the short man (presumably Moore) was on the OUTSIDE of the Asian group and that the tall man was closer to the stores, doing the blocking. This is direct + major contradiction to what Shahini has insisted thus far; he says the opposite, with Lucky on the outside doing the snatch. This seems a pretty considerable distinction. It will be interesting to see how both sides handle summation

3 Likes

Write comment

Your email address will not be published.

Once Per:
Order: