Well, after a fair amount of deliberation we decided that there simply
wasn’t sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the charge
against her. The case was a fairly simple one, but with some tangled
bits.
A 15 year old girl, Jennifer Clayburn, overdosed on some prescription
drug in an apparent suicide attempt in September of 2003. While at the
hospital for observation, she told a counsellor that her attempt was due
to distress over and event which had happened early that summer, when
she was raped by her boyfriend Jeremy Gurley, a young man some four
years her senior. Her story was that she & Jeremy (19) were at the
home of their friend Jamie Davis (16), and that Jamie’s mom, Amber
Irene Spaziano, had bought her Jägermeister and/or Rumplemintz,
poured her Red Bull & Jäger shots and urged her to drink; later
on, Jennifer, Jamie & Jeremy (way too many J-names…
in this case) retired to Jamie’s bedroom, where Jamie proceeded to
suggest a three-way kiss
(a phrase of which we all grew quickly
sick), and that Jennifer went along with it for awhile, tried to
disengage and was then raped by Jeremy. Four months later, distraught
over this incident, she tried to kill herself by taking too much of one
of her meds. This, at least, was what she alleged.
Our job was to determine if the defendant, Mrs. Spaziano, had
contributed to the delinquency of a minor by providing Jennifer with
alcohol, as claimed in this story. The whole rape issue was really a
red herring, an appeal to emotion. Our concern wasn’t to
determine whether or not Jennifer had been raped, but whether
Mrs. Spaziano had given her a drink.
As it turned out, the sole witness to this drink-giving was Miss
Clayburn herself, and she wasn’t a very reliable witness. She was
very out-of-sorts, as though on severe medication, and her testimony was
itself unconvincing, although had it been corroborated may have been
believable. The prosecution called four other witnesses: a former
sheriff’s deputy, who had investigated the nearly five-month old
charges in late October of ’03; Miss Clayburn’s parents, who
had no actual evidence to provide (they were not there that night, and
hence could not say whether or not Mrs. Spaziano had done anything at
all); and Mr. Gurley, who stated under oath that he, Miss Davis and Miss
Clayburn had taken some beer from the fridge when Mrs. Spaziano was out
on her balcony having a smoke. One would think it unusual for a
prosecution witness to undermine the prosecution’s case so
directly.
As you can see, the prosecution didn’t have much of a case: one
witness alleging a crime; one witness denying it took place; and three
witnesses with no knowledge of anything relevant (that’s a slight
exaggeration, as they had some information pertaining to the date of a
tongue-piercing which helped place the day of the alleged incident).
But what about the defence?
They called a Keith something-or-other, essentially a non-entity who
had been there that evening, a friend of one of Mrs. Spazziano’s
sons, who had nothing very substantive to add, save that he said she had
never allowed children to drink in her home, and that he hadn’t
seen them drinking. Then Jimmy Aragon, a friend of hers who was there
that night, testified essentially the same thing: that he & she had
been drinking, but that she never gave the kids anything, and that she
never let kids drink anyway. Then her daughter testified the same
thing, and finally the defendant herself took the stand and testified
essentially the same thing.
When I write the same thing,
the reader should know that what
I mean is that the gist of the stories was the same; the actual stories
differed in mostly non-important details. One person said that the beer
had been in cans; another in bottles; another in cans first, but then
bottles were purchased. Or one person spoke of Jägermeister and
another of a clear bottle, when every elementary school student knows
that Jägermeister comes in green bottles. But the fundamental
elements were the same.
So as a jury we were faced with one spaced-out witness stating one
thing, and five witnesses stating another thing. There were some
ancillary matters, such as who had which motives, but that was the basic
issue. Could we in good conscience hand down a felony conviction with
such scant evidence?
Naturally, we could not. I can’t say that the defendant was
innocent, but I don’t know that she was guilty. The State of
Colorado failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had, indeed,
knowingly given minors alcohol, and so we had to find her not guilty. I
must say that watching her reaction when the judge read the verdict made
me feel quite glad for her sake, whether or not she was guilty.
Incidentally, my co-jurors initially asked me to be foreman, but I
turned down the honour. I don’t think I should care for all eyes
to be on me.