Mr.
Jarrett is skilled at questioning veniremen; his expertise shows in
the responses he elicits from ordinary men and women confronted with
the full weight and majesty of the criminal law. He was first
assistant DA in Dallas County, transferred to Williamson County, and
took over his duties in Waco as soon as Abel Reyna took office in
2011.
“You've
got to want to be on this jury – or any jury,” Mr. Jarrett told a
woman. He based his remark on her answers to a jury questionnaire.
Why
did she wish to serve on the jury that will decide the punishment of
the beleaguered tax collector?
“To
hear the truth,” she answered. “To hear if he did what they say
he did with our money.”
As
it turned out, she believed Mr. Skeen had stolen tax dollars. Mr.
Jarrett told her that is false, that he misapplied those dollars.
Under the terms of the statute and the indictment, he need only prove
that Mr. Skeen misapplied the money in his accounts.
The
law requires no proof of motive, or what actually became of the
money, he insisted.
He
need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the funds from a
fiduciary property – a county-owned pickup – were misapplied.
“How
many of you have a positive image of Mr. Skeen?” he asked.
Only
two persons raised their hands.
“How
many of you have a negative image of Mr. Skeen?”
No
one raised their hands. This crowded room filled with adults saw a
moment or two when no one would look at another person's face.
After
the moment passed, he asked who believes that every word spoken from
the witness chair is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. “How many of you believe that no lie has ever been told by
someone sitting in that chair?
Not
one soul raised their hand. Instead, both men and women giggled like
naughty little school children.
Another
woman at first said she believed Mr. Skeen bought a pickup with tax
money.
Wrong.
Then
she said she thought he stole public funds.
Wrong
again.
Mr.
Jarrett said he is prepared to prove that he knowingly and
intentionally caused the figures representing the “fiduciary
property,” something similar to a forfeiture fund because it
represents the worth of something the public trusts him to care for,
to be entered on the wrong line in a ledger, or cash journal.
“Our
allegation is that it cost the county money.”
His
intentions would become plain through the introduction of evidence
and testimony, he assured his listeners.
“The
only two crimes in which intent is not required (to be proven),” he
said, “are DWI and criminal trespassing.” In those offenses, the
facts speak for themselves.
Furthermore,
he pointed out, “The law doesn't require that the defendant receive
personal benefit from the transaction.”
In
an exchange prompted by a venireman's response to one of the
questions on the form, Mr. Jarrett asked if anyone had experience
with a friend or relative who had been accused of being less than
honest with public funds.
Referring
to the chart, he called a man by his name, and he replied, saying “I
had a friend who was prosecuted for embezzlement in the state of
Missouri. She wasn't handled right...The judge should have recused
herself.”
The
judge bounced up to a very upright sitting position. His face
colored, and he became very alert as the attorneys on both sides of
the question filled in diagrams on the little charts they keep of the
jurors by their venire number and seating position.
No comments:
Post a Comment