The trial is over. Actually, it came to an end late Thursday afternoon. It was a criminal trial. We found the defendant "not guilty". But it was not an easy decision for any of us. The gist of the case was that this college kid, a football scholarship guy from New Orleans, bought a Ford Explorer from a used car dealer in Waterloo. It was one of those, 'cash only' dealers who do their own financing. Seems they say the kid got behind in his payments so they repoed the truck. The kid says he was not in default, in fact he was paid ahead. So the dumb kid when to the dealership and took the truck back. When the dealer discovered it was missing, he reported it stolen. The police found it in a garage of a friend of the kid, ergo, theft in the 2nd degree.
So what it came down to was, do we believe the kid, or the dealer. There were 3 points of law that we had to say he was guilty of without reasonable doubt. Two of the points were easy to say he was guilty. Yes, he took the truck from the lot of the dealer. Yes, I believe that he 'hid' the truck to prevent the dealer from getting it back. But, just who was the 'rightful owner'?
The dealer had a lien on the title, but the title was in the kids name. If he was not in default, as he said, he was not stealing, but retrieving his own property.
All of the jury thought they everyone was lying!! The dealership's record keeping was a joke.
Cash payments only. No checks, no credit card, not even money orders. The dealer said yes they accepted money orders, but people who did buy a car from them testified that they were told Cash only! In other words, no paper trails. The receipts were as joke. They were the kind you can buy at the Dollar Store for your yard sale. There was a stamp of the dealer name, and then an amout like 50. No dollar signs, no decimal point. No initials of who took the cash. Just two dates, I assumed one for the actual date and one for the date the payment was due. No remaining balance. Really shabby for a buisness. The kid had two receipts that the police lab says were altered. But of course they could not say who altered them.
The kids story was that he came in several weeks after first getting the car and the salesman, who at that time was also the owner of the dealership ( who did not testify, more on him later) said, Give me $3500. now we'll call it even and it's yours. This is what the he said he did. His copy of the receipt is $3550. the receipt number in the dealers book say $50. One of the altered receipts. So the kid says the truck was his. He said when the new tags were due on his birthday he found out about the lien still on it. So he went to the dealer and they then said he still owed money. And that each time they talked to him, it was a different amount for a different reason. So when they repoed it, he was fed up with them and just took it back. Stupid yes, but if it was his???
The record of payments from the dealer was a large index card. and on the payment dates it would say either an amount, or OK or 50. and none of it matched any of the receipts in any receipt books we saw.
So based on the direction we were given of innocent until proven beyond the reasonable doubt, and the question of who owes a car when a lien is on it. We felt we had to say, not guilty.
Now after we reached a decision, the judge and lawyers came in and we were able to talk and ask questions. It was then we found out that the owner/salesman the kid did business with origionally, did not testify because he is in prison in Illinois. For what I have been told the murder of a little girl who was missing from Waterloo. And all this was going on near the time the football kid was giving the dealership his money. We also found out that the football kid has a more serious assault charge against him in another county. So you can see, nice people all.
What did I think of the whole experience? At first I dreaded it. But it did not take long for me to get really involved it the process and I found I really felt I wanted to do the best job I could for the court system. As the judge said, it is not perfect system, but it is what we got. The District attorney did an excellent job, but the paperwork was just not there for her. We asked her why no one showed us the kids bank statments that would have shown where he took out the amounts he said he gave the dealer. The football kid said he went to his bank and got the cash out of his checking and savings accounts. The defense showed us where the University had given him over $10,000. in his grants, scholarship and loans. But even the defence did not show us his bank account withdrawls for the weeks he said he gave the money to the dealer. That would have strengthen either side if the withdrawls were or were not there. The DA said it would have taken some court orders and I guess she did not want to deal with that. The defense said they did not think it mattered if they showed that he did have the money. I got the feeling that the defense attorney was really counting on the innocent until proven guilty direction. I was not real impressed with him.
The DA said why did we not beleive the kid altered the receipts. My thoughts on that were I could have believed either the dealer or the kid could have done it. She said "what would it gain the dealer to alter the recipts. I could not beleive this question. Tax Fraud, of course. Or the salesman can give the people an altered receipt and pocket the cash. She said, why would he do that. I guess this young asst. DA never heard of under the table tax free cash.
Anyway, I am glad that I was called, and glad that I got on a jury, and I am even more glad that my name will not go back into the system for 2 years.
If this recount of the trial does not make sense, it is because the whole trial did not make sense to me. The dealer got the truck back, in fact the truck was resold. For less than they said the kid owed because the dealer said the transmission was so bad. He testified that the truck had no reverse, and first and second gear were screwed up also. But his mechanic also testifed that when the cops found the truck in the garage, and he came to retrive it, that he backed the truck out and drove it back to the dealership. So why did they not drop the thief charge and just go after him in claims court for the money?