on the cover / By Judy Hodgson

The Notebook of Alternate Juror No. 4

I kept my cell phone near in case I was needed. I was informed of the hours the jurors were working: until 2 p.m. this day, noon the next. I was surprised it was taking so long. Three days passed and they broke for the weekend. On Tuesday, March 25, I finally got the call that a verdict was in and I drove to the courthouse.

There in the hallway were my fellow jurors waiting for court to reconvene, looking subdued and avoiding much eye contact with me or with each other. I approached a few of them and handed out my business cards, reminding them I am a reporter and would be writing a story. Most declined to talk. One said, “It was tough. I just hope nobody gets thrown under the bus.” In other words, we made a decision together and we should stick together.

Although the headline in the Eureka Reporter the next day read, “Scout Leader Found Guilty,” that was only part of the story. He was found guilty of possessing child pornography. He was found guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct, a significantly lesser charge by iteself. He was found not guilty of the greater crime of repeated molestation over a period of three months with someone under the age of 14 (with an age difference of more than 10 years between the perpetrator and the victim).

There was no beer celebration at the end of the trial. The attorneys like to talk with jurors immediately after a case to obtain feedback on how to improve. Only a few jurors could be cornered since most headed to the courthouse exits as quickly as possible. While defense attorney Brown spoke with one juror, I followed Klein into a side room to debrief another who was resigned to the verdict but clearly not happy. The jury started out with three jurors — him included, he told us — who felt the defendant was guilty of the repeated molestation charge, two who wanted to acquit on all charges and everyone else in between. Seeds of doubt grew.

“In the end, I felt half a loaf was better than a hung jury.”

Afterword

Matthew Davis’ sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 30. However, on April 9, Glenn Brown, Davis’ defense attorney and the chief of the Humboldt County Conflict Council’s Office, filed a motion for a new trial. In the motion, Brown alleges that Deputy District Attorney Arnie Klein introduced material at trial that had not previously been disclosed to the defense.

During the trial, Davis’ neighbor — the one that had testified about seeing Davis and the victims at Swimmer’s Delight — related a story his young daughter had told him about seeing the defendant in the shed, handling a pair of boxer shorts. The neighbor said he believed the shorts belonged to one of the victims. In court documents, this is referred to as “The Boxer Shorts Incident.” The neighbor testified that after the incident the did not want his daughter to return to the shed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE >SHARE