At just before midnight on May 14th, the police are called. A cat has gone missing. Fluffy, the cat in question, has been missing for 48 hours, but her family, the Johnsons, swears that she has never been gone for this long.
As the police officer, here are your options:
[[You ignore the call]]. Cats go missing all the time, so what's the big deal? Besides, you have other work to do and no time to waste.
[[You immediately launch a full-scale investigation]] because cats are a gift to this world and must be protected at all costs. You ignored the call, and now there's one more catless family in the world. You should be ashamed.
//Note: Technically, police officers are not legally obligated to respond to 911 calls, no matter how dire someone's circumstances.// The cat is still missing, so the police officers launch a full-scale investigation. The Johnsons explain that Fluffy has been a part of the family for nearly ten years, and she has never run away. You ask if they have any guesses as to the cat's location. She could have gone to a neighbor’s house, they say, but about 48 hours have passed and none of the neighbors have spoken up. They confirmed that the cat does have a tag with the family’s phone number on it.
As the police officer, here are your options:
[[You feel like you’ve reached a dead end]], and there’s other work piling up at the office. You apologize to the Johnson family and close the investigation.
[[You decide that there are more avenues to explore]]. Maybe the cat was stolen or run over. It could be limping along some random street. Either way, the Johnsons deserve closure, so you follow up with another series of questions. Come on, don't be lazy. Go back and save Fluffy.You ask if Fluffy is in good health. They reply in the affirmative. You wonder aloud if Fluffy could have been hit by a car. They shake their heads. Fluffy has always been jumpy around cars and people.
No one back at the police station has received any calls about any animal being hit by a vehicle. You ask about the family’s schedule and what their cat does when no one’s home. The family confirms that they do not have a cat-sitter during the day, so they do not know what Fluffy does when she is home alone. The cat likes walking around the neighborhood, they say, but it always comes home.
As the police officer, here are your options:
Right now, the only lead that is not a dead end would be that someone stole the cat. In your 20 years on the force, there has never been a catnapping, and it would be too embarrassing to ask the chief of police to use up more resources on this investigation. [[After all, it’s just a cat]].
[[It’s never just a cat]], and besides, if you didn’t explore every lead, how could you sleep at night? You ask the chief of police for two more days to work on this investigation.It's either you investigate this case, or you spend the next month passing out parking tickets, so let's go save Fluffy!Your request is granted: You can spend a couple more days investigating.
The Johnsons have become suspicious of some of their neighbors, mainly Ms. Holiday and Mr. Crow. You decide to investigate these individuals.
You walk straight over to Ms. Holiday’s house to have a brief chat with her. She welcomes you in and offers coffee. You politely decline. Below is a transcript of the conversation that followed:
You: Do you know anything about a missing cat in this neighborhood?
Ms. Holiday: I heard about the Johnsons’ cat, yes, I hope Fluffy is alright.
You: So you’re familiar with their cat?
Ms. Holiday: Of course! He’s my favorite neighborhood kitten.
You: Did you see anything suspicious on the day of May 14th?
Ms. Holiday: That was this past Thursday, right? I was working all day, so I wasn’t out and about in the neighborhood.
You: Where do you work?
Ms. Holiday: The flower shop on the other side of town.
You: I think those are all of the questions I have for the time being. Here’s my card if you want to get in touch.
[[You stroll over to the next house to visit Mr. Crow...]] The police officers talk to some other neighbors to confirm the alibis. Mr. Crow is, in fact, retired and is well-known for not leaving his house. Ms. Holiday’s alibi, however, does not add up. Multiple persons reported that Ms. Holiday had been fired from the flower shop prior to the day of the suspected catnapping. There are also rumors that stealing office supplies is what got her fired. Furthermore, some neighbors close to both Ms. Holiday and the Johnson family admit that Ms. Holiday has an unhealthy obsession with Fluffy.
As the police officer, here are your options:
You have all the evidence you need. [[You arrest Ms. Holiday]] and take her down to the station.
This is a good lead. [[You ask Ms. Holiday some more questions]]. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Mr. Crow is a dead end. This would probably not be a good idea. An arrest warrant must be obtained from a judge before you arrest Ms. Holiday, and there is not sufficient evidence to establish //probable cause// (i.e. there is not yet a reasonable basis for believing that Ms. Holiday may have stolen Fluffy). //Probable cause// is usually required for an arrest to take place.
Also, Ms. Holiday seems willing to talk and cooperate with the investigation. Arresting her would cause her to hire an attorney, and she would probably stop answering questions at that point. You return to Ms. Holiday's house the next day with more questions. What follows is a brief transcript of the conversation:
You: Hey Ms. Holiday, I'm just here with a few follow-up questions.
Ms. Holiday: Okay.
You: I called your employer, and they said you don’t work there anymore. Is that true?
Ms. Holiday: I may have exaggerated a little bit, you got me. I’m currently unemployed.
You: And you were fired for stealing supplies?
Ms. Holiday: Well, it was just a few pens, but yes.
You: So, if you weren’t working on May 14th, then what were you up to that day?
Ms. Holiday: I was out and about in the town for a bit, but I mostly stayed home.
You: That's all you did?
Ms. Holiday: Yes.
You: What were you doing in town?
Ms. Holiday: Looking for a new job.
You: Can anyone verify that?
Ms. Holiday: I’m not sure if anyone saw me, and I do live alone.
You: Thank you, Ms. Holiday. Those are all the questions I have for now.
As the police officer, here are your options:
After today, you have to attend to other cases. [[You hand this case over to the district attorney]] (DA) and let them take care of the rest. However, if the evidence is insufficient, they may just close the case.
You know there’s more to this story, so [[you investigate it on your own time]]. You promise yourself that, by the time you hand this case over to the DA’s office, they’ll have enough evidence to file charges.
You still can't believe you're doing this. For the love of everything holy, why are you investigating a missing cat in your free time? You compulsively check the news and your texts in case there's a new development. You think about your conversations with Ms. Holiday. Is she really that suspicious? All the evidence so far is circumstantial, so you go over to the Johnsons' house to ask some more questions.
The door opens after the first knock. They tell you the case has been solved, and their cat is back! They thank you for your hard work. It seems too good to be true, but you had a feeling that the cat would come back eventually.
[[You keep the case open]] for another day just in case there's any news about where the cat had been. But for now, you go home and crack open a cold one to celebrate.Your cursor hovers over the button. In a few short seconds, the case will officially be closed. It was a long week, but it was worth it for Fluffy.
You reach for the mouse, but your phone rings. It's the Johnsons. You answer. They waste no time in explaining that they're not so sure that the cat that returned is actually their cat. You roll your eyes. You can't believe you're being dragged back into the fray again, but you drive over to the Johnsons' residence to ask some questions.
They show you the cat side-by-side with a picture of the Fluffy they know and love. //They look pretty similar//, you think to yourself.
You admit to them that you don't see the difference.
They all start talking over each other, shocked and angry that you can't tell the cats apart.
With a sigh, you apologize for your transgression and start taking notes.
Here's what the Johnsons know about this impostor cat:
-The cat just showed up at their doorstep at around 8PM the previous night.
-She doesn't respond to "Fluffy."
-She hasn't touched her favorite toys since she got back.
-Her eyes and ears look a little off.
[[You start to wonder]] if someone dropped off a fake cat just to get you to close the investigation.It's late. You're skipping out on family movie night to cover this case because no one else will. You park outside Ms. Holiday's house, ready to question her again. The following is a rough transcript of the conversation:
You: How've you been, Ms. Holiday?
Ms. Holiday: I'm alright. But what brings you back here? I heard the Johnsons got their cat back.
You: Yes, that's what I'd like to talk about. Where were you last night, at about 8PM?
Ms. Holiday: I was home all night watching TV. Why are you still asking after their cat?
You: There's been a complication.
Ms. Holiday: Huh. Anyways, would you like a cup of coffee?
You: Sure.
While Ms. Holiday starts brewing the coffee, you notice something on the floor. You whip out a small plastic bag usually reserved for gathering materials from crime scenes. With a gloved hand, you sweep the contents into the bag. You hold the bag up to the light, and sure enough, you've just found a few small tufts of golden hair. You don't recall seeing any cat hairs on your previous visits, and you wonder if Ms. Holiday had vacuumed them up or swept them into the trash.
You call over to Ms. Holiday to raincheck the coffee. You head straight over to the forensics lab and run some tests on those hair samples and compare them to the samples of Fluffy's hair that you previously found at the Johnsons' house. They're a match!
Here are your options:
[[You arrest]] Ms. Holiday for the catnapping of Fluffy.
[[You consult with your police buddies]] first to see if you have enough evidence to make an arrest. You decide not to get an arrest warrant. You don't know a lot at this point, so an arrest might've been premature. However, you may have grounds to procure a search warrant so that you can search the rest of Ms. Holiday's house.
Here are options:
[[You go to the local judge]] and try to make your case that you have //probable cause// to search Ms. Holiday's house.
The judge might say no, and you don't want to get caught up in needless bureaucracy. [[You break into Ms. Holiday's house]] while she's out so you can find more evidence. You'll find a way to justify it later.An arrest warrant is only issued if there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed by the arrested individual. As of right now, it's true that there might be //probable cause// to issue an arrest warrant. Arresting Ms. Holiday could have the benefit of ensuring that she doesn't destroy any evidence that might still be in her house.
However, it might not be a smart move to arrest a cooperating suspect because they might stop cooperating with your investigation once you arrest them.It's true that there are legal ways to justify warrantless searches, but this is an unnecessary risk. When in doubt, ask yourself: What would Fluffy do?You go to the local judge. You write down everything you know so far, whether it's your observations or someone else's statements, then sign the document and pass it along to the judge. This is called an affidavit, and these written statements are made under oath.
You describe Fluffy's uncharacteristic disappearance to the judge along with Ms. Holiday's alleged obsession with the cat, her alibi for the night in question that turned out to be false, the return of an impostor cat, and Fluffy's hair in Ms. Holiday's house. You explain to the judge your conviction that Fluffy might be trapped inside Ms. Holiday's house or might have previously been held captive there.
As the local judge, here are your options:
[[You provide the officer with a search warrant]]. Because of the cat hair and the false alibi, there is //probable cause// for believing that there is evidence of the alleged catnapping at Ms. Holiday's residence.
[[You deny the officer their search warrant]]. This would effectively end the investigation. However, most of the officer's evidence is circumstantial, so there is not //probable cause// to believe that there is further evidence of a crime in Ms. Holiday's house.
//Note: Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered.//You've got your warrant! Now, you can search Ms. Holiday's house.
You drive straight over to conduct the search. She answers the door holding a vacuum, saying she was in the middle of cleaning. You show her the search warrant. She seems flustered, but she complies with the warrant. You search the house, finding small tufts of fur everywhere from the basement to the kitchen to the bedroom as well as an almost-empty bag of cat food in the basement. However, you find no other signs that there was ever a cat in her home.
Interestingly though, while searching through a drawer, you find a piece of paper with directions to all the local animal shelters.
Here are your options:
[[You pocket the slip of paper]]. This could be a good piece of evidence in a trial.
[[You put the slip of paper back in the drawer]]. It doesn't actually have much useful information on it, so you leave it where you found it. That might not be a good idea. [[You put the slip of paper back in the drawer]] after remembering proper protocol. Excellent decision. It would probably be a violation of the warrant to pocket that slip of paper. Most search warrants are specific about what can be searched for, where in the house the search can take place, and for how long. Since you mainly wanted to look for more evidence that Fluffy and maybe the impostor cat had been there, you likely would not have been allowed to search through drawers and closets. As such, the slip of paper would not be admissible evidence during a trial.
However, you could have lied and said that you found it sitting on the nightstand, and then the plain view doctrine would have allowed you to seize the evidence.
[[You proceed]] to ask Ms. Holiday a few questions after you've completed your search. You ask Ms. Holiday if Fluffy has ever been in her house. She hesitates but says no. You then ask her about the cat hairs you found all over the house. She says that she tried adopting a cat, but it didn't work out, so she returned it to the animal shelter. You ask for proof of purchase, but she doesn't have any.
You head back over to the forensics lab, and you run some more tests. You test the hairs collected against a sample from both Fluffy and the impostor cat. The hairs from every part of the house are mostly Fluffy's, but some of them match the impostor cat. You shake your head. //What the heck is going on here?// you think to yourself.
Here are your options:
You're exhausted from having to do this whole investigation in your free time. You have a partner and kids that miss you. [[You go to a judge for an arrest warrant for Ms. Holiday]], and hopefully the district attorney (DA) can take care of the rest.
[[You keep investigating]]. If you hand this case over to the DA without enough evidence, then they won't end up bringing charges against Ms. Holiday.Without being able to search Ms. Holiday's residence, there's little more you can do to dig up evidence. The district attorney's office would not file charges with the amount of evidence you have collected thus far. The case stalls, and with a pained look in your eyes, you tell the Johnsons that you have to close the investigation. It looks like you've been investing too much time into this case and not enough into spending quality time with your family. Your partner and kids aren't happy with you. [[You go to a judge for an arrest warrant for Ms. Holiday]] and finally take a step back from the case. As the judge, you review the information the police officer has brought before you. Ms. Holiday's denial of Fluffy ever being in her home despite DNA evidence to the contrary is compelling. However, it is not clear that she has any motivation to catnap Fluffy aside from really liking her, nor has anyone recently seen Ms. Holiday and the cat together.
As the judge, here are your options:
[[You grant the arrest warrant]]. There are grounds for //probable cause//. Ms. Holiday has consistently lied to the police, first about her alibi and then about the cat hair. Also, the cat hair appeared to have shown up at Ms. Holiday's residence only after Fluffy had disappeared. A reasonable person would determine that Ms. Holiday was the last person to see Fluffy and was thus likely involved in the cat's disappearance.
[[You don't grant the arrest warrant]]. There is a distinct lack of motivation for Ms. Holiday, an elderly widow, to commit this crime. Until a motivation is established, there cannot be a reasonable basis for believing that Ms. Holiday has committed a crime, especially considering that Ms. Holiday has no criminal record or previous infractions. Approving a warrant would also mean that Ms. Holiday would have to sit in a jail cell for about 48 hours. More evidence is necessary before subjecting someone to that kind of treatment.All your hard work has paid off. The police chief is impressed with your dedication, and you might get a promotion if Ms. Holiday turns out to be the right suspect. You arrest Ms. Holiday at her residence, informing her that she is being arrested for the theft of Fluffy Johnson. You also provide her with the typical Miranda warning which informs the arrested individual of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney and to have that attorney present during any and all questioning.
The arrest created a scene in the community. Ms. Holiday did not go quietly as she yelled about how this was all a big misunderstanding. The crowd watches solemnly as you opened the back door to the police cruiser. Nobody in the crowd seems surprised, and as you drive away from the already-dispersing crowd, you wonder if they all know something you don't.
As a police officer, your work here is just about done, until you eventually get called as a witness in the trial. You fill out some paperwork, and now Ms. Holiday is sitting in a jail cell for a day or two until her [[arraignment]], which the DA will take care of.This is a tough pill to swallow, but you've already promised your family that you would take a step back from this case. You leave the files on your desk, never to be touched again. As the DA who will be prosecuting this case, you have received all the relevant information from the investigating officer and the forensic laboratory. Now, you have to decide what charges to file. This takes place at a legal proceeding called an arraignment.
Which charges are you most interested in filing?
[[Animal cruelty, Burglary, Theft, Illegal sale of a pet, Obstruction of a police investigation]]
[[Kidnapping, Robbery]]
[[You drop the case]]. There's not enough evidence to prosecute, and it's the police's job to investigate the case, not yours.Actually, it is common for the prosecution to talk with police officers and witnesses to gather more information, so a case that looks light on evidence might end up being a much stronger case after further investigation. In the next part of the arraignment, the judge decides how high to set bail or whether to let the defendant back out into the community. The important factors to consider include but are not limited to:
-the seriousness of the alleged crime
-age of the defendant
-past criminal record
-strength of communal and familial ties
-the potential risk to public safety
-potential for being a flight risk
As the judge, here are your options:
[[You set bail at $50,000]].
[[You set bail at $10,000]].
[[You set bail at $1,000]].
[[You let the defendant back out into the community without bail]].The //beyond a reasonable doubt// standard is a very high bar, and at the present moment, there is probably not enough evidence to convict (although new evidence could always make itself known). Make sure to consult with your attorney before you make your plea before the court. A $10,000 bail would be about right given the severity of the charges offset by Ms. Holiday's mitigating factors.
Ms. Holiday doesn't make much from her social security checks, so paying bail would be a financial burden. However, if she doesn't pay bail, then she is stuck in jail for however long it takes to resolve the trial, which could take months.
If you're Ms. Holiday, do you pay bail?
[[Yes]].
[[No]].Given the charge of burglary, $1,000 would be a very low bail, even if she's just an old lady. This option is rare. The judge usually sets some kind of bail, even if it's as low as $250. Given the charges and the mitigating factors, such as the lack of a criminal history and the defendant's age and low risk posed to the community, a $50,000 bail would be unreasonably high. Prosecutors are allowed to throw the whole kitchen sink at defendants, including any charges more or less severe than what the police officer originally charged the defendant with. The charges change as prosecutors find more evidence and better understand the case, so the prosecution often adjusts the charges over time, and the judge might dismiss some of the charges due to lack of evidence.
At the arraignment, you present the charges of animal cruelty, burglary, theft, illegal sale of a pet, and obstrucction of a police investigation to the defendant. The defendant generally pleads guilty or not guilty on each charge.
Now, you have to put yourself in the defendant's shoes. How do you plead?
[[Not guilty on all charges]].
[[Guilty on all charges]]. Even if you didn't commit the crimes, you're worried that your lies got you in hot water, and you don't want to risk more jail time.In most states, animals are actually considered property, so statutes pertaining to theft or larceny would come into play rather than kidnapping laws. Also, robbery is defined as taking property by force from another person, and Ms. Holiday is an elderly woman. She probably did not take the cat by force.You posted bail and can now stay at home for the remainder of the trial (as long as you attend all of the hearings and court proceedings).
Now, on to the [[discovery phase]].You end up sitting in jail for the next couple months waiting for the trial to wrap up. Not a fun time.
Now, on to the [[discovery phase]].By the start of the preliminary hearing, where the judge determines if there is enough evidence to hold a trial (by using the //probable cause// standard), both the prosecution and defense have usually had a few weeks to develop their arguments through discovery and independent investigation.
The DA has a few tricks up their sleeve that they could use during the preliminary hearing. However, it is often strategic to avoid showing all your cards at once during the preliminary hearing if you know you can easily prove //probable cause//.
As the prosecutor, what do you do?
[[You save most of your witnesses and documents]] for the actual trial. The investigating officer already passed the //probable cause// standard for the search warrant and arrest warrant, so you should be fine.
[[You bring out your best witnesses and arguments]]. Even if you risk giving the defense an advantage by letting them hear your main points, you have to make sure you surpass the //probable cause// standard. Technically, the discovery phase starts as soon as the defense attorney is hired or appointed and ends before the trial starts. During this phase, the defense and prosecution must share information about all relevant documents and witnesses with each other and respond to each other's reasonable requests for more information. Failure to do so could result in witnesses and documents being excluded from trial.
As the DA, you've gathered a lot of information. Ever since Ms. Holiday's arrest, neighbors and members of the community have been calling in offering mostly unhelpful but occasionally valuable information. Here's what you've learned:
A plumber fixing Ms. Holiday's sink on May 14th (the day Fluffy went missing) claims that Ms. Holiday said she was going to leave for a bit to adopt a cat. They also claim that they never heard her car start, so she may have been walking over to the Johnsons' house instead.
One of Ms. Holiday's neighbors said she heard what sounded like an angry cat hissing and meowing inside Ms. Holiday's house on May 14th.
You were given access to a receipt indicating that Ms. Holiday bought cat food on May 14th.
A friend close to Ms. Holiday tells you that they saw her in town all day looking for a new job, so she couldn't have been stealing a cat.
Obviously, the last piece of information is not helpful for the prosecution's case, and you definitely won't use it in trial. Do you decide to give this information over to the defense?
No. You're not using it, so [[you don't have to]].
Yes. [[You send the information over to the defense]], even if it hurts your case.
You might get into hot water if you try to suppress exculpatory evidence. It's also ethically questionable behavior. Correct! You are legally required to supply the defense with exculpatory evidence. If you are too generous with the information you provide the defense, though, you'll have trouble securing convictions and favorable plea bargains, and you could lose your position as DA. On the other hand, it is relatively easy to hide such evidence from the defense counsel, and there is not a robust system in place for holding attorneys accountable when they hide evidence that might exonerate the defendant.
Now, on to the [[preliminary hearing]]. This is probably the best option. Very few cases are dismissed as a result of a preliminary hearing. However, the judge does reduce the number of charges being filed after dismissing the charges of burglary, animal cruelty, and obstruction of a police investigation.
Now, you will be moving forward with the following charges:
-Theft (both petty theft and grand theft)
-Illegal sale of a pet
The next step is [[pre-trial motions]]. You bring out the big guns for the preliminary hearing and easily surpass the //probable cause// standard. The defense takes this opportunity to cross-examine your witnesses. The defense now knows your arguments inside and out. As such, Ms. Holiday ends up being found not guilty on all charges in the actual trial. At this juncture, either side may ask for the venue to be changed, for one or more charges to be dismissed, or for certain pieces of evidence to be suppressed.
Neither party asks for the venue to be changed. This request is usually only made when either party feels that they cannot receive a fair trial in their county due to unfair/excessive media coverage, a biased political atmosphere, or one party's negative local reputation among other reasons.
Neither party asks for any of the charges to be dismissed. Motions to dismiss are rarely successful anyways.
However, the defense counsel does ask for one piece of evidence to be suppressed. Based on what they learned from discovery, the investigating officer found a tuft of cat hair in Ms. Holiday's house, but they never had a warrant to search her house at that point. This evidence was also the basis for the search warrant this officer later obtained, which means that that evidence should be suppressed, too.
As the judge, you have to decide if the police officer performed an illegal search of Ms. Holiday's house and if the evidence obtained during the search must be kept out of trial:
[[Illegal search]]. The evidence discovered during the search is inadmissible.
[[Legal search]]. The evidence discovered during the search may be used in trial. The officer performed a legal search that did not require a search warrant. Via the plain view doctrine, police officers may seize evidence that is in their line of sight, but only if they have a right to be where they are and if they have //probable cause// to believe that the evidence is connected to criminal activity.
Ms. Holiday consented to at least a plain-view search of her home by inviting the police officer into her house. The officer also had //probable cause// to believe that the observed cat hairs were connected with the catnapping. Thus, the cat hair seized by the police officer is admissible in trial.
Now is as good a time as any to discuss [[plea bargaining]].The officer performed a legal search that did not require a search warrant. Via the plain view doctrine, police officers may seize evidence that is in their line of sight, but only if they have a right to be where they are and if they have //probable cause// to believe that the evidence is connected to criminal activity.
Ms. Holiday consented to at least a plain-view search of her home by inviting the police officer into her house. The officer also had //probable cause// to believe that the observed cat hairs were connected with the catnapping. Thus, the cat hair seized by the police officer is admissible in trial.
Now is as good a time as any to discuss [[plea bargaining]].At virtually any point during a case, the prosecution and defense can convene to discuss a plea bargain, or in other words, a reduced sentence for the defendant if they agree to plead guilty. Plea bargains are controversial, though. They allow guilty parties to partially shirk responsibility by accepting lighter punishments, and those who are innocent are sometimes pressured to plead guilty.
On the other hand, they do have benefits for both parties. Each side can save a lot of time and money by not going through with a full trial, and it also ensures that the defendant goes to prison. Over 90% of convictions are secured via plea bargain, and if this were not the case, the courts would likely not have the resources available to see every trial through to the end.
If you were Ms. Holiday, would you accept a plea deal, if it were offered?
[[Yes, but only if you get probation instead of jail time]]. You're also willing to pay a fine to get the trial over with, but you're not willing to spend time in jail.
[[No, the crime doesn't seem too harsh]]. What's a few months in jail matter to an old lady, anyways?Well, the Johnsons want justice for their cat (which is still nowhere to be found), so they would never accept anything less than the harshest sentence available.
Since there's no plea deal, let's move on to the next stage of the trial: [[Jury selection]].It's a good thing you feel that way, because the Johnsons would probably not accept a plea deal until they get their cat back.
Since there's no plea deal, let's move on to the next stage of the trial: [[Jury selection]].A panel of potential jurors is convened in front of the judge and both attorneys.
First, the judge will ask the prospective jurors a series of questions to ensure that they are eligible and legally allowed to serve and that jury duty would not cause any of the prospective jurors undue hardship.
Most states allow someone to miss jury duty for knee surgery, for instance.
But can someone skip out on jury duty if they're a full-time student?
[[Yes?]]
[[No?]]It depends on the state and the judge, but most students can postpone their jury duty until the summer or until either winter or spring break rolls around.
Now, on to the [[selection process]].It depends on the state and the judge, but most students can postpone their jury duty until the summer or until either winter or spring break rolls around.
Now, on to the [[selection process]].It's important to keep in mind that you're not necessarily trying to choose unbiased jurors. You're trying to choose jurors who will be biased in your favor. That's exactly what the opposing counsel is doing, too. If you take the moral high ground and choose impartial witnesses, the defense counsel might just end up walking all over you.
The process for selecting jurors is relatively simple. A panel of prospective jurors is brought in, you and the other attorney argue over whether or not to remove a certain juror from the panel for being biased, and then repeat with each prospective juror that one of you takes issue with. There's one caveat, however. Both you and the other attorney have a handful of //peremptory challenges//. These allow you to remove a juror without providing justification. But you can't use these as a pretext for discrimination against any group based on their race, ethnicity, or gender (though it is very difficult to prove unlawful discrimination). Alternatively, discrimination on the basis of age, religion, and political leaning are all legal in jury selection.
To state the obvious, no cat-lover will ever see the light of the courtroom. But what other kinds of people might you be able to sneak onto the jury? People with a certain hair color? Or height? Or socioeconomic status? It's definitely not easy to pull a fast one on the opposing counsel except with the (un)lawful use of a peremptory challenge.
So, you're presented with a prospective juror. They've never had a cat. This person is about 20 years old and middle class. They seem like they might be of a more liberal leaning, and maybe liberals care more about animals?
[[You use a peremptory challenge]] in order to keep this juror on the jury.
[[You pass]] on the peremptory challenge and wait for someone more favorable.There are no right answers here. Selecting juries is tough, and it's never clear when you should use up one of your precious peremptory challenges.
Now that the jury selection has wrapped up, we can move on to the [[trial]].There are no right answers here. Selecting juries is tough, and it's never clear when you should use up one of your precious peremptory challenges.
Now that the jury selection has wrapped up, we can move on to the [[trial]].You step into the courtroom. The room is half-filled, the hand-picked jurors are in their positions, and the Johnsons are seated directly behind you. You also see Ms. Holiday across the aisle.
The judge slams the gavel, and the trial starts. Aside from the opening and closing statements you can make objections on the grounds of [[hearsay]], [[unfair prejudice]], [[speculation]], and [[improper expert opinion]], to name a few.
The prosecution makes their opening statement. The defense responds with theirs.
Now, each side calls their witnesses to bolster the arguments laid out in their opening statements.
[[The prosecution calls their first witness...]]Hearsay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Hearsay is not admissible evidence in a trial. There are many exceptions to the rule, but a witness cannot testify something along the lines of: "Mr. Jenkins told me that Ms. Holiday sold Fluffy to someone in Minnesota." If this is true, it has to be proven using evidence that does not amount to hearsay. Evidence that is substantially more prejudicial than probative is not admissible in a trial, even if the evidence does have some probative value. For instance, if Ms. Holiday were a self-described communist who doesn't believe in private property, that could feasibly explain why she might take Fluffy, but the probative value of that testimony might be substantially outweighed by the extent to which it would unfairly prejudice the jury against Ms. Holiday. Witnesses cannot testify to any matter outside the scope of their personal knowledge. This means that a witness can testify saying that "Ms. Holiday looked mad," but they cannot testify that "Ms. Holiday //was// mad." Regarding the latter statement, the witness can't actually know how Ms. Holiday was feeling since no one can read minds, but they might have personal knowledge of how Ms. Holiday looked, which is why the former, but not the latter, is admissible.In trials, experts must have the qualifications to be formally considered experts in a certain field. This means that Mr. Johnson cannot testify that "a cat probably wouldn't get lost if it left the house" since he has no expertise in feline behavior. The plumber takes the stand. After a few minutes of questioning, here's the information you got out of them:
During the day on May 14th (the day Fluffy went missing), the plumber heard Ms. Holiday say she was going to adopt a cat. But the plumber knows there aren't any animal shelters within walking distance. They also never heard Ms. Holiday's car start, so they concluded, "I don't think Ms. Holiday actually went to an animal shelter."
The defense objected to this statement on the grounds of [[speculation]].
This evidence is crucial to the prosecution's case, but is it admissible?
[[Probably?]]
[[Probably not?]]The plumber said, "I don't think Ms. Holiday actually went to an animal shelter."
Witnesses cannot testify to any matter outside the scope of their personal knowledge. The plumber made this statement based on their personal knowledge of the lack of animal shelters within walking distance and the fact that the plumber never heard a car start.
But the plumber could not have had personal knowledge of Ms. Holiday's visits or lack thereof to animal shelters after she left her house.
In the end, the judge sustained the objection and decided that this statement was speculative and was therefore not admissible. It was then stricken from the record, and the jury was instructed not to consider this statement in their deliberations.
[[The prosecution calls their next witness...]]The plumber said, "I don't think Ms. Holiday actually went to an animal shelter."
Witnesses cannot testify to any matter outside the scope of their personal knowledge. The plumber made this statement based on their personal knowledge of the lack of animal shelters within walking distance and the fact that the plumber never heard a car start.
But the plumber could not have had personal knowledge of Ms. Holiday's visits or lack thereof to animal shelters after she left her house.
In the end, the judge sustained the objection and decided that this statement was speculative and was therefore not admissible. It was then stricken from the record, and the jury was instructed not to consider this statement in their deliberations.
[[The prosecution calls their next witness...]]One of Ms. Holiday's neighbors takes the stand. After a few minutes of questioning, here's the information you got out of them:
During the day on May 14th (the day Fluffy went missing), Ms. Holiday's neighbor heard what they believed to be "angry hissing and meowing coming from Ms. Holiday's house."
The defense objected to this statement on the grounds of [[improper expert opinion]].
This evidence is crucial to the prosecution's case, but is it admissible?
[[Uh, probably?]]
[[Hmmm, probably not?]]Ms. Holiday's neighbor heard what they believed to be "angry hissing and meowing coming from Ms. Holiday's house."
Is this an improper expert opinion? Does this witness require expertise or further training with animals in order to be qualified enough to know what a cat's meow sounds like and to determine what makes a hiss or meow sound angry?
In the end, the judge overruled the objection and decided that this statement is admissible.
Then, the defense's witnesses take the stand, followed by closing statements from each counsel.
[[Here are the most important facts that came to light during the trial...]]Ms. Holiday's neighbor heard what they believed to be "angry hissing and meowing coming from Ms. Holiday's house."
Is this an improper expert opinion? Does this witness require expertise or further training with animals in order to be qualified enough to know what a cat's meow sounds like and to determine what makes a hiss or meow sound angry?
In the end, the judge overruled the objection and decided that this statement is admissible.
Then, the defense's witnesses take the stand, followed by closing statements from each counsel.
[[Here are the most important facts that came to light during the trial...]]On May 14th (the day Fluffy went missing) during the afternoon, Ms. Holiday left the house to adopt a cat. It is not clear where she went, but the plumber did not hear the car leave the garage, and the plumber does not believe there are any animal shelters within walking distance.
Angry, catlike hissing and meowing was heard from Ms. Holiday's house on the night of May 14th.
A couple days later, a forensics lab confirmed that the tufts of fur in Ms. Holiday's house matched the DNA of Fluffy's fur. Some of the fur there matched the DNA of the impostor cat as well.
The investigating police officer testified that Ms. Holiday lied about where she was on the night in question and, based on the DNA evidence, lied about Fluffy's whereabouts.
Ms. Holiday changed her story and said the hairs must've been from some time in the past when Fluffy was in her house.
The police officer recalls that there were no tufts of fur visible during his first conversation at her house, but then they suddenly appeared during later visits, suggesting that Fluffy had been in Ms. Holiday's house after Fluffy had been declared missing.
Also, the officer recalls a nearly empty bag of cat food in Ms. Holiday's basement just days after Fluffy had gone missing. The receipt obtained indicates that the bag was purchased on May 14th. The empty bag of cat food appeared to be consistent with a cat living with Ms. Holiday. She claims that the cat she allegedly adopted ate all of that cat food (nearly an entire bag), but she purpotedly returned that cat after only one day, so this is an unlikely story.
The prosecution claims that "Ms. Holiday's financial troubles served as a motive to steal and consequently sell Fluffy. The cat is nowhere to be found, and there is no motive for murder or animal cruelty, so the only reasonable conclusion that the jury can reach here today is that Ms. Holiday both stole and sold Fluffy."
[[Now, it's time for the verdict...]]The jury has carefully weighed all of the evidence for the following two charges brought against Ms. Holiday:
Theft
Illegal sale of a pet
How does the jury vote?
[[Guilty of both charges]]
[[Guilty of theft]] but not illegal sale of a pet
[[Guilty of illegal sale of a pet]] but not theft
[[Not guilty of both charges]]Hmmm, try again!This is probably the right verdict. However, although it depends on the value of the cat, this crime would likely qualify as petty theft, not grand theft. This might only result in a fine of around $500 to $1,000. If there is jail time involved, it will ususally be less than 6 months.
If the Johnson family wants to appeal the decision in order to secure a harsher punishment or more money, they can do so, but appeals are rarely successful. Reversing the "not guilty" verdict for illegally selling a pet would be very difficult, and making the case that the judge should have given a harsher sentence for theft is just as tough a case to make.
Upwards of 90% of the cases appealed are either rejected outright, or the decisions are upheld even when the appellate court accepts the case.
Now that the trial is mostly wrapped up, it's time for [[post-trial motions]].The standard used in trial is conviction //beyond a reasonable doubt//. Because no conclusions can be drawn about Fluffy's fate, whether she was sold to another owner or worse, we can't know to a sufficient degree of certainty that she illegally sold Fluffy.
Besides, most states do not issue much in the way punishments for illegally selling animals (though some statement do have hefty punishments for stealing farm animals). Theft underlies any illegal sale of a pet, so in any case in which a pet is stolen, convicting for theft would probably be the most successful route to take. Hmmm, try again!During sentencing, each party will have the opportunity to make their case in favor of a harsher or lighter sentence.
//Note: Regardless of what arguments the judge hears in favor of one side or the other, they are supposed to abide by //stare decisis//, the doctrine of precedent. In other words, judges are supposed to hand down a punishment about as severe as the punishments handed down in similar cases in their jurisdiction.//
The prosecution highlights Ms. Holiday's aggravating factors. She repeatedly lied, tried to cover her tracks, and refused to take responsibility for her actions. She also declined to explain her connection to the sudden appearance of the impostor cat, and most importantly, she has been uncooperative in the now-closed investigation into Fluffy's whereabouts.
However, the defense counsel points out that she is also an elderly lady with strong ties to the community, no criminal record, and no history of substance abuse.
As the judge, what sentence do you hand down?
[[$500 fine and no jail time; 3-month probationary period]]
[[$1,000 fine and 30 days in jail]]
[[$2,000 fine and 180 days in jail]]This would be a favorable sentence for Ms. Holiday. Cats can cost thousands of dollars, and if the Johnson family's cat did cost that much, Ms. Holiday would be facing a charge of grand theft and a much less lenient sentence. Petty theft is usually reserved for crimes in which property valued at less than $500 (or less than $1,000, depending on the state) is stolen.
This would be a fair sentence and a common outcome for anyone convicted of grand theft.
[[But...]]This would be a harsh punishment for a first-time offender and would likely not come to fruition. Fines and jail time of this magnitude are usually reserved for more serious instances of theft.
Post-trial motions serve as the final stage of the trial. During this stage, either party may motion for a new trial (e.g. if there was jury misconduct or new evidence that came to light after the trial), motion for a judgment of acquittal (i.e. a request for the judge to disregard the verdict and allow the defendant to go free), or motion to correct an illegal sentence (such as when the judge sentences the defendant to more prison time than is allowed by law for a certain offense).
Generally, nothing of substance takes place during post-trial motions, though sometimes miscalculations are made in sentencing. In that case, either party can file a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the motion is usually granted.
Next up: [[Sentencing]]I hope you enjoyed the story!
As a disclaimer, this is neither a defense nor an indictment of our criminal justice system. If there's any lesson to be learned from this fictional tale, it's that the criminal justice system is complicated and, more importantly, very subjective. Attorneys, judges, and jurors are given broad discretion when it comes to interpreting standards like //beyond a reasonable doubt//. Accordingly, it's easy to imagine the abundance of reasonable disagreements that could arise from such subjective terminology.
As a wise man once said, "If shared ignorance in the face of immense complexity cannot unite us, then all is lost."The police officer explains the situation to the chief of police and requests a bit more time to investigate the alleged catnapping.
As the chief of police, here are your options:
You’ve been on the force for a long time, and these investigations usually turn up nothing. It would be bad press for a local newspaper to find out that officers are being dispatched for missing kittens while there is far more serious crime to deal with. You tell the police officer to [[forget it]], and you assign them to a new case.
You don’t have many resources to spare, but this could be a great opportunity to improve the police's relationship with the local community. Everyone loves kittens, and if the officers actually find the perpetrator (or the cat), then that would be fantastic press. [[You give the police officer an extra 48 hours]].
Word of your disregard for cats spreads to the local newspaper, and now everyone hates your police department. But saving Fluffy could help repair your image, so you reopen the investigation. Here’s a brief transcript of your conversation with Mr. Crow:
You: Do you know anything about a missing cat in this neighborhood?
Mr. Crow: No, whose cat went missing?
You: The Johnsons’ cat, Fluffy.
Mr. Crow: That’s terrible, it was always nice to see her on my walks.
You: Did you see anything suspicious on the day of May 14th?
Mr. Crow: No, it seemed like a pretty normal day to me.
You: What were you up to that day?
Mr. Crow: Well, as you can see, my wrinkles don’t lie. I’ve been retired for a few years now. I mostly sit around, read the newspaper, and complain to my wife about the youth.
You: I think those are all of the questions I have for the time being. Here’s my card if you ever want to get in touch.
You only have time to further question one of these two individuals before you have to close the case. Do you talk to [[Ms. Holiday]] or [[Mr. Crow]]?The DA gets really annoyed with you for pawning off such a weak case on them, especially one about a catnapping. The DA chooses not to investigate the case, and Fluffy is never found.Even a guilty verdict can't fix everything. Fluffy is still missing, and the Johnsons constantly wonder how their cat is doing. Meanwhile, the impostor cat that the Johnsons have now adopted is a bittersweet reminder of how Ms. Holiday unforgivably wronged them.
//Fin.//
[[Click here to learn a little more about the vision behind this project]].
<script>
function EmbedTwineUpdateHeight(){
var passage = document.getElementsByTagName("tw-passage")[0];
if (passage === undefined){//SugarCube
passage = document.getElementById("passages");
}
var newHeight = passage.offsetHeight;
if(newHeight<500){newHeight=500;}
window.parent.postMessage(["setHeight", newHeight], "*");
console.log(newHeight);
}
setTimeout(EmbedTwineUpdateHeight, 50);
</script>