I expected a hung jury and mistrial in the Raynella Dossett-Leath murder trial, based on the questions jurors had asked throughout. Several questions sounded more like counter-arguments to the defense’s presentations than simple queries for clarification. One or two questions sounded a bit like promptings for the defense to provide more information. What I was wrong about was whether the minority was for or against conviction. I thought the jury was leaning to “not guilty” because the prosecution had not met its burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I’m not a lawyer—I have to repeat that. I’m a writer. I can’t help but speculate about what might have happened in a suspicious death like this. I can usually think of a dozen, possible, logical alternatives to the prosecution’s theory. So, what I have to say here is simply that, a fiction writer’s imagination at work.

What might the lone holdout on the jury have been thinking was a “reasonable doubt” beyond which the prosecution had not led him or her?

1) Yesterday the foreman said the holdout wanted a “smoking gun.” As a language-monger, I do not take the phrase “smoking gun” literally in this situation. No one on the jury (IMHO) was asking that the gun be hot to the touch when the police arrived. This is a metaphor for solid evidence that tied the defendant to the gun. The prosecution did not prove when the victim died, and so a reasonable juror could claim that the alibi was valid. The prosecution did not prove that the defendant even knew the gun existed (the only evidence suggesting it was hers came from a jealous step-daughter who testified against the defendant and apparently had an opportunity to plant evidence when she entered the house after the autopsy). The defense presented compelling evidence that the gun was fired by someone in the bed (as far as anyone suggested, the only person in bed was the victim). The prosecution’s forensic evidence was sketchy and questionable. I believe the holdout juror found all of these good reasons to doubt the charges.

2) Yesterday the foreman said the holdout did not accept “circumstantial evidence.” (Note: He did not say the holdout wanted eye-witnesses or a confession.) As a language-monger, I believe the foreman understood what circumstantial evidence is, but I suspect that the holdout was really trying to tell him that insufficient circumstantial evidence was presented. There is a very big difference, but you can’t expect the average juror or foreperson to understand the nuances of this language.

From my jury experience (limited as it is) I know how powerful peer pressure is during deliberations. It takes a very, very strong individualist to withstand the pressure of 11 peers. In “my” trial I saw a weaker individual cave-in eventually. Unlike the Dossett-Leath juror who held out for acquittal, the holdout was for conviction on a kidnapping charge (but in concurrence on sexual assault charges).

The holdout in the Dossett-Leath trial is going to be “hung out to dry” for having hung this jury. It will be grossly unfair. This is how the system is supposed to work. (IMHO, again, and I am not a lawyer, again, from what I heard of the testimony in this trial, if I were a juror I would have had a long list of questions for both sides. Numerous as the jury questions were, I still have more.)