(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Not Guilty of Indecent Solicitation of a Minor: I was an Alternate Juror [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-06-09 I recently served 3 days of Jury Duty; the charge was indecent solicitation of a minor. The text chain in which a 26-year old man requested a 15-year old mentee send an explicit self photo was submitted as evidence. The verdict was Not Guilty. If you're wondering how that could happen, the short answer is prosecution incompetence. The long answer is below. Background A teen named Nate died by suicide a few years ago. His father started a local non-profit to help other at-risk teens. A local college student, majoring in social work, started as a volunteer. In time, that student completed Bachelor's and Master's degrees in social work, and became the organization's Executive Director. I'll refer to him by his first initial, S. As Executive Director, S handled most of the paperwork, organized fundraisers, and mentored students. One of these students was a 15-year old neighbor. I'll refer to this neighbor as M for minor; this may or may not be his actual initial. I don't recall if they were next door neighbors, or had a house between them. It was mentioned they had adjoining backyards. They didn't know each other well before M's involvement in the non-profit. At one point, S helped M draft a letter to his parents explaining issues M was having. M eventually took on an active role in the organization, helping other students. One night, at around 10:30 pm, S initiated a text conversation with M. A transcript of this conversation was provided to all 14 jurors. Screen shots of M's phone wre provided to the 12 deliberating jurors, so I did not see those. The transcript was about 1 and 3/4 pages, single spaced. I've done my best to summarize in the next section. Direct quotes are limited to phrases that were either quoted in local press or hammered into the jurors' heads repeatedly by council. Text Chain S says hello. M says hello back. S asks if M can admit it's not big, saying "Prove it. Send it to [another minor in the program]". M expresses shock. S says M's sent it before. M says not to "anyone we know". This is all by line 10. S claims to have seen a pic of M's penis. M says it couldn't be his. S asks M if his penis is straight, curved, or bent. M says, "dude, stop asking abt my dick". S says he'd heard a rumor about M sending pics, and that the previous portion of the text chain was a ruse to get M to admit if he'd been sending pics. M is upset. S says words to the effect of, "I was just trying to help. I won't make that mistake again" three times. This quote is not exact; all 3 statements were similar, but not identical. M apologizes to the man who'd just asked him to send a dick pic. S makes a vague mention of potential rumors about M sending pics. M expresses shock and asks for more info. S replies that he thought M didn't want to talk about this anymore. M explains that he didn't want to talk about details of his penis, but does want to know about rumors that could affect him. S claims to have discussed the rumor with another party, and put a stop to it. Both discuss that sending such pics is a bad idea. M denies ever doing it. S says, "Proud of you". After a few more lines of, for lack of a better word, pleasantries, the text chain is over. After At first, M did not tell anyone about the texts. After about 9 weeks, M told his best friend. Best friend told best friend's mom. Best friend's mom told M's mom. M's mom spoke to M and went to the police, who arrested S. S was arrested and charged with indecent solicitation of a minor. Trial The prosecution opened by focusing on the initial request to send a pic, and the line, "stop asking about my dick". The defense opened with a promise to tell, "the rest of the story" ala Paul Harvey. The defense attorney maintained the same story that S did, that the request was ruse intended to find out if M had sent pics, not a genuine request to send a pic. Defense maintained that position throughout the trial. Prosecution never directly addressed it. Neither prosecuting attorney claimed the ruse position was not credible. Nor did they contest the idea that such a ruse would be a legal thing to do. Defense argued that inappropriate did not mean illegal. The transcript of the text chain was submitted as evidence, and five witnesses were called. I don't recall the order. S must've been last, because he was the only witness defense called. Prosecution called the other 4. Defense claimed that after line 8 of the transcript, everything else backed the idea that S was perpetrating a ruse. Prosecution never refuted this idea, nor presented the interpretation that the text chain was abusive, intended to show dominance over M, not help him. Nate's dad, the founder of the non-profit, testified about starting the organization and S's involvement with it. S was fired soon after the arrest, I think the next day. The allegations caused larger groups to withdraw support. With no support and no Executive Director, the non-profit closed. M's mom testified to her role in learning about the texts, asking her son about them, and reporting to the police. Defense mentioned the "anyone we know" aspect of M's text, and the implication that M had sent a pic to someone S did not know. M's mom said she discussed this with M, and believed M had never sent any such pic to anyone. The arresting officer testified to the process of arresting S. Defense wondered why the arrest happened so quickly. The officer explained that it was due to the nature of the crime and S and M being neighbors. Defense argued S should've been able to tell his side of the story before the decision to arrest was made. M testified. Defense again brought up the implications of "anyone we know" indicating sending a pic to someone S didn't know. M denied ever sending any such pics to anyone. M also denied ever discussing sending pics with M before the text chain. M said he didn't say anything about the texts at first because he was worried it would hurt the non-profit if the story got out. S testified that M had claimed in a prior conversation between the two of them to have sent a pic to someone. S also said he'd heard a rumor that M had sent more pics, prompting the text chain as a means of investigating. Prosecution asked if S could recall who he'd heard the rumor from; S testified he could not. Prosecution said that seemed unlikely given the effect that rumor has had. This is the only time I can recall Prosecution expressly pushing back on Defense's narrative. S testified that his text claiming to have addressed the rumor with the other party was a lie. Prosecution spent some time getting S to admit that many of the statements S made at the start of the text chain were lies. I guess this tactic would normally be useful in undermining a witness' credibility. But, when the witness is claiming to have perpetrated a ruse, it just confirms that narrative. Prosecution went over S's credentials: Bachelor's and Master's degrees in social work, and a social worker's licence. Prosecution then asked something like, "and on what day of your training did you learn to ask a minor for dick pic". This would've been a great line of questioning to pursue. Citing S's expertise in dealing with troubled youth could undermine his claim that he thought asking for an explicit photo would be a good idea. Instead, it was one snarky line. Since he doesn't seem good at prosecuting criminals, maybe he should pursue a career as an insult comic. Defense's questioning of S reiterated their main argument, that S thought M was sending explicit photos, and asked M to send one as a means to determine if S was correct. Defense pointed out that S had surrendered his license and moved out of state, as though these were noble sacrifices on S's part. Prosecution never mentioned that these actions allow S to apply for a social work job/license in his new state and answer "no" if asked if he's ever had a license suspended or revoked. Juror instructions preceded closing arguments. The judge explained that the facts that warrants were issued and an arrest made are not evidence, and did not counter the presumption of innocence that S was entitled to. It was prosecution's job to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We were also told to use our experience and common sense. Thinking back, I'm fuzzy on where to draw the line between using my common sense to analyze facts and doing prosecution's job for them. Maybe the other jurors felt the same way. The judge also stressed that part of the relevant law required that a solicitation be a genuine attempt to procure illicit content. At the time, I found it odd that S's story of asking for pics to see if M was the kind of person who'd send pics would have legal justification. Now, I wonder if the intent requirement was for someone who sent a message to Joe Blow Jr that was meant for Joe Blow Sr. I don't know, because prosecution never discussed this issue. Defense closed by reiterating their narrative, and explaining that they didn't have to do anything. That it was prosecution's job to prove their side. This matched what the judge said. Defense then said M was good at playing the victim, I believe using those exact words. Prosecution closed by reiterating their argument, that S asked for a pic at the beginning of the text convo. Prosecution then emphasized that we heard from the arresting officer, that warrants were issued, and an arrest made. These are things the judge had specifically told us not to consider as evidence minutes earlier. Placing this much focus on them made the case seem weaker overall. At this point, I and one other juror were selected as alternates, and moved to another room. I didn't notice the time, but would estimate 11am to noon. At 1 pm, we were all let out for lunch, with deliberations resuming at 2. Around 2:10, we alternates were brought back into the courtroom to hear the verdict, sitting in the gallery instead of the jury box. The foreperson delivered the Not Guilty verdict. All 14 jurors were brought back into the deliberation room, and the judge came in to thank us for our service. He said it was a close case, and he could've seen it going either way. After a little small talk, we were dismissed. So, a 26-year old man who asked a 15-year old boy under his supervision to send a dick pic was found Not Guilty because he stuck to his implausible story, and the prosecution: * failed to directly counter that story * failed to address the "intent" clause of the relevant law * spent much of their closing argument stressing things the judge told us not to consider As the trial wound down and the 12 jurors were being selected, I was planning to vote Guilty based on the facts as I understood them. But, I also thought at the time that maybe I could be persuaded to vote Not Guilty based on the prosecution failing to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Thinking back on it now, the prosecution provided the text transcript, which led me to see S as manipulative and reasonably doubt his ruse story, so they (barely) did their job. I wonder if any of the 12 voting jurors feel the same way. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/6/9/2245724/-Not-Guilty-of-Indecent-Solicitation-of-a-Minor-I-was-an-Alternate-Juror?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/