Who cleans their hot tub in a blizzard? It's my fourth January in Alaska, but I still am not proficient enough at drinking or domestic violence to pass as a local. So, I find myself outdoors, orally siphoning dirty water out of a 250 gallon tub in what I think is a window of good weather. The window was a lot smaller than anticipated, and due to the effects of freezing on drains, this chore wasn't one that could be left when the snow and sleet started falling again and the wind picked up to 30mph.
The next day, I settled for a more locally-themed indoor activity, and went to watch a jury trial. I learned another lesson from this activity that will stick with me as long as "don't clean a hot tub in a blizzard." No, it's not "don't go watch jury trials," if they weren't entertaining, there wouldn't be so many TV shows and movies based on them. The new lesson is: "If you ever get in trouble in Homer, AK, immediately seek outside legal counsel."
The legal masterminds of our day are obviously not working as public defenders and state prosecutors in rural Alaska, but the circus I watched was a comical reminder. The undisputed facts of the case were these: the defendant and the victim had both been drinking and yelling at each other in the victim's residence; the defendant threw a coffee mug* from a second story loft that hit the victim, who was downstairs, in the head; the victim sustained a head injury that required 22 stitches; the victim waited for an ambulance and police in a nearby vehicle; the police arrested the defendant; the victim did not press charges, but was subpoenaed as a witness for the State. The charge was assault in the 4th degree (which is a misdemeanor that the State of Alaska defines as "recklessly causing physical injury to another person"); the defendant plead 'not guilty'.
The defense was multi-faceted razzle-dazzle to shame Chicago. The argument made by the defense attorney was four-pronged:
1) *It wasn't really a "mug" it was a "teacup." Aesthetically speaking, It certainly sounds like a teacup would feel a lot better on the forehead than a mug, but not as nice as a facial massage. If either one is gonna result in 22 stitches, getting hit with kitchenware is getting hit with kitchenware. Also, fair or not, the entire jury was composed of sighted individuals and the prosecution presented an exact match of the shattered mug/teacup as evidence.
2) At some point in time the victim asked the defendant if they would be interested in swinging. Amazingly, the prosecution never objected on the grounds of 'irrelevance' and the defense attorney was able to make multiple witnesses on the stand define 'swinging' (exchanging spouses for sex) when she brought up the request as an element of defense for the assault charges. This was funny to watch, as no one is really comfortable defining slang terms for sex in front of a well-lit room of strangers. Never mind that the defendant and victim are not married, because we're not trying to stay on the topic for which we were called to court anyway.
3) The victim had been drinking and was sitting in a car after the alleged assault, so they should have been charged with a DUI. This would be an interesting point to watch debated if I was present at a DUI trial, as it can be argued that if you are "controlling" a vehicle if you are in it with the keys. But, as far as I knew, the only defendant in the room was the one on trial for assault. No objections from the prosecution though. At this point, I started to question if Alaska state law or court procedures really have any bounds of relevancy at all. If I'm charged with a crime, can I sight the last time my victim lied to their mother as a defense? Maybe we can also discuss the manner in which the parties involved pick their teeth.
4) When the victim called 911, they flirted with the dispatcher. Since this call, like the alleged DUI, occurred post-assault, and off-crime scene, I questioned its relevancy. The prosecutor did not, but she did offer a tape of the 911 call as State's evidence and played it for the courtroom. I was pretty excited to hear if the defense's remarks were true, as I would love to know how you go about hitting on someone in the course of an emergency phone call (everyone's interested in a new angle for an eligible date in January in Alaska, after all). Disappointingly, the 911 caller just sounded nervous and a little intoxicated, more or less as expected from someone that is stunned, uncomfortable, and has their own blood on their face.
More than 40 minutes were spent on each of these arguments. The victim and the cop that responded to the scene testified. The cop was so obviously annoyed and bored with the defense attorney that he barely kept from rolling his eyes. Due to many recesses & continuances, The jury made multiple trips in a blizzard to hear the elaborate details of the case and random details of peoples' lives that they probably didn't care to hear. I tried to keep from laughing out loud by admiring the architecture and paint job in the courtroom, and thinking about how much money the state of Alaska has to spend on public buildings.
Speaking of public funds, this case, by court calendar, took up at least a week of the court's time. The final verdict was 'Not Guilty.' I'm certain the prosecutor was paid for her work, even though any citizen off the street could have shot cannonball holes in the defense's case using a feather duster. The defense attorney probably sleeps fine, as many people are required to hand in their scruples when receiving their law degree. No one seems concerned about the use of public funds or the state of our legal system. And I say 'no one', because the same number of people show up to spectate at court cases as clean hot tubs in blizzards.
The next day, I settled for a more locally-themed indoor activity, and went to watch a jury trial. I learned another lesson from this activity that will stick with me as long as "don't clean a hot tub in a blizzard." No, it's not "don't go watch jury trials," if they weren't entertaining, there wouldn't be so many TV shows and movies based on them. The new lesson is: "If you ever get in trouble in Homer, AK, immediately seek outside legal counsel."
The legal masterminds of our day are obviously not working as public defenders and state prosecutors in rural Alaska, but the circus I watched was a comical reminder. The undisputed facts of the case were these: the defendant and the victim had both been drinking and yelling at each other in the victim's residence; the defendant threw a coffee mug* from a second story loft that hit the victim, who was downstairs, in the head; the victim sustained a head injury that required 22 stitches; the victim waited for an ambulance and police in a nearby vehicle; the police arrested the defendant; the victim did not press charges, but was subpoenaed as a witness for the State. The charge was assault in the 4th degree (which is a misdemeanor that the State of Alaska defines as "recklessly causing physical injury to another person"); the defendant plead 'not guilty'.
The defense was multi-faceted razzle-dazzle to shame Chicago. The argument made by the defense attorney was four-pronged:
1) *It wasn't really a "mug" it was a "teacup." Aesthetically speaking, It certainly sounds like a teacup would feel a lot better on the forehead than a mug, but not as nice as a facial massage. If either one is gonna result in 22 stitches, getting hit with kitchenware is getting hit with kitchenware. Also, fair or not, the entire jury was composed of sighted individuals and the prosecution presented an exact match of the shattered mug/teacup as evidence.
2) At some point in time the victim asked the defendant if they would be interested in swinging. Amazingly, the prosecution never objected on the grounds of 'irrelevance' and the defense attorney was able to make multiple witnesses on the stand define 'swinging' (exchanging spouses for sex) when she brought up the request as an element of defense for the assault charges. This was funny to watch, as no one is really comfortable defining slang terms for sex in front of a well-lit room of strangers. Never mind that the defendant and victim are not married, because we're not trying to stay on the topic for which we were called to court anyway.
3) The victim had been drinking and was sitting in a car after the alleged assault, so they should have been charged with a DUI. This would be an interesting point to watch debated if I was present at a DUI trial, as it can be argued that if you are "controlling" a vehicle if you are in it with the keys. But, as far as I knew, the only defendant in the room was the one on trial for assault. No objections from the prosecution though. At this point, I started to question if Alaska state law or court procedures really have any bounds of relevancy at all. If I'm charged with a crime, can I sight the last time my victim lied to their mother as a defense? Maybe we can also discuss the manner in which the parties involved pick their teeth.
4) When the victim called 911, they flirted with the dispatcher. Since this call, like the alleged DUI, occurred post-assault, and off-crime scene, I questioned its relevancy. The prosecutor did not, but she did offer a tape of the 911 call as State's evidence and played it for the courtroom. I was pretty excited to hear if the defense's remarks were true, as I would love to know how you go about hitting on someone in the course of an emergency phone call (everyone's interested in a new angle for an eligible date in January in Alaska, after all). Disappointingly, the 911 caller just sounded nervous and a little intoxicated, more or less as expected from someone that is stunned, uncomfortable, and has their own blood on their face.
More than 40 minutes were spent on each of these arguments. The victim and the cop that responded to the scene testified. The cop was so obviously annoyed and bored with the defense attorney that he barely kept from rolling his eyes. Due to many recesses & continuances, The jury made multiple trips in a blizzard to hear the elaborate details of the case and random details of peoples' lives that they probably didn't care to hear. I tried to keep from laughing out loud by admiring the architecture and paint job in the courtroom, and thinking about how much money the state of Alaska has to spend on public buildings.
Speaking of public funds, this case, by court calendar, took up at least a week of the court's time. The final verdict was 'Not Guilty.' I'm certain the prosecutor was paid for her work, even though any citizen off the street could have shot cannonball holes in the defense's case using a feather duster. The defense attorney probably sleeps fine, as many people are required to hand in their scruples when receiving their law degree. No one seems concerned about the use of public funds or the state of our legal system. And I say 'no one', because the same number of people show up to spectate at court cases as clean hot tubs in blizzards.
