|
Main Menu
|
|
Friday, 20 July 2007 10:00 |
It was late on a Thursday afternoon when the judge finished reciting the instructions for the jurors in the John Berchielli trial. If they used the next day to reach and deliver the verdicts, Judge Mason’s travel arrangements could remain intact. The only problem was that the judge had told the jurors they would have Fridays off, and apparently some of them had taken the statement seriously. Three jurors had medical or dental appointments, and another had agreed to take over a business presentation for her vacationing boss.
Appearing annoyed by the conflicts, and possibly fearing the evaporation of his weekend plans, Judge Mason decreed that all appointments be rescheduled. The resulting scramble was made no less hectic by the judge’s inadequately hospitable offer to “pay the quarter for the phone call.” Heated negotiation sessions went into full swing in the outside hallway, as jurors on cell phones tried to talk their way out of late cancellation fees or break the news to their mothers that they would have to find someone else to escort them to the hospital.
As for the young woman with the work presentation, she was unable to reach her boss, and grew increasingly anxious over her conflicting requirements. When she reported to the judge about her inability to reschedule, her distress was met with casual disregard. After discovering that she worked for an advertising agency, Judge Mason was flat in his dismissal. “Oh, I know how those work,” he said condescendingly. “Someone else can just fill in.”
Once all had been settled, it seemed that the jury had spent more time deciding when to deliberate than they spent in actual deliberation. In spite of the frantic rescheduling efforts that devoured Thursday afternoon, the jurors ultimately decided to abandon the notion of deliberating on Friday. They met only long enough to choose a foreman, then disbanded for the weekend. Judge Mason responded by arranging for a colleague to sit in for him during the reading of the verdict, then promptly packed his bags and waved Sactown goodbye. His travel plans, which had been preserved at all costs, were ultimately fulfilled. It would be the only happy ending produced by the trial.
The jury finally met for deliberation on the morning of Monday, June 25th, 2007, but the session proved to be a moderately brief one. Everything was settled in time for lunch, after which they gave the alert that the verdicts had been reached. Berchielli hurried to the courthouse in response to a phone call, and Webber was escorted from his holding cell by a uniformed deputy. The process of assembly took longer than the proceedings themselves -- the jury, more solemn-faced than ever, delivered its bad news with merciful swiftness.
Webber dodged the possession charge but was hit with a guilty verdict on a single count of cultivation. For Berchielli, however, there were no consolation prizes -- he was handed down guilty verdicts on all five counts. Still reeling from the shock of the announcements, he was hit with an additional surprise when the Deputy District Attorney requested that he be taken into custody immediately. Berchielli had just been convicted on severe felony charges, Maureen O’Connor emphasized, and as such, he could be considered a flight risk.
The substitute judge barely heard the argument, and instead allowed Berchielli to remain free pending the sentencing hearing, which was scheduled out six weeks into the future and would require the fateful return of Judge Mason. The jurors were then thanked and released from service, at which point this reporter promptly intercepted them with open-ended questions about the factors that influenced their deliberation.
Three jurors submitted to interview, and all three portrayed their consideration of the evidence as careful and thorough. Not only did they study the text of the medical marijuana laws exhaustively, but they also reported combing through the details of every theory presented in the case. “We really tried to think outside the box,” said juror Katie Riley, who was vocally forthcoming about the jury’s approach to deliberations. “We went though every single potential explanation.”
Riley gave the distinct impression that no stone had been left unturned in the jury’s deliberation. The guilty verdict on the marijuana charges, she explained, was due to inadequate evidence that the grow was collective. “What would have helped us is if people with medical cards came forward,” she said. “Without that, you just have someone who exceeded the limits.”
When questioned about the child endangerment verdict, the jurors were firm on the point that the presence of marijuana was not, by itself, enough to prove the charge. As a whole, they were not influenced by Sergeant Zwolinski’s claim that marijuana fumes sink into a household’s upholstery and thereby chemically endanger children. Instead, the jurors’ main concern was that the marijuana plants would attract unscrupulous thieves, and this was what convinced them on the child endangerment charge.
“Yeah, she could have fallen into the nails and the wire in the yard,” Riley said about Berchielli’s daughter, “but the thing we were really worried about was a home invasion robbery.”
The other two jurors chimed in collective agreement on this point, indicating that it was heavily discussed during deliberation. The consensus, according to this jury, was that marijuana attracts serious crime, especially burglary. It was a fitting conclusion for a jury whose suspected sticky fingers got them barred from handling the marijuana evidence. Right before deliberation, the judge told these jurors that the temptation to steal marijuana was so strong that it might turn any one of them into thieves. The jurors appeared to take the judge's suspicions to heart.
For Berchielli, though, the verdict represents a blow to the parental rights of all medical marijuana patients. “I knew that if I lost this case, it would mean that other patients are going to get their kids taken away,” Berchielli said, shaking his head solemnly. “I hope I’m wrong. I really hope I’m wrong.”
John Berchielli and Sheldon Webber are scheduled for a sentencing hearing on July 30th at 9am. The hearing will take place in Dept. 61 of 651 I Street, in Sacramento, California.
 |
|
Last Updated on Sunday, 29 July 2007 11:59 |
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed