Thirst for Justice

by David R. Boyd

  “Now imagine, if you will, that one of your children has become ill with a potentially deadly disease. You take your daughter or your son to a doctor, who tells you that the only available remedy is extremely expensive and not covered by your health insurance. You cannot afford to even begin the course of treatment. You watch your child waste away before your very eyes. You are helpless, incapable of providing the assistance he or she needs. One day, your child is gone. The baby you carried within you for nine months, the child who suckled at your breast, the child for whom you would willingly sacrifice your life, is dead.”

  Quarrington continued, with added urgency in his voice, “The loss of a young child is a devastating psychological blow from which most parents, understandably, never recover. So the toll, in human terms, is far greater than the mere total of mortalities. A circle of suffering extends outward from a dead child, like the impact zone of a bomb, with those closest to the victim most likely to be harmed by the explosion and the emotional shrapnel.

  “If your son or daughter was starving to death, and you possessed the means to intervene, you would. If your neighbor’s son or daughter was starving and you possessed the means to assist, you would. What about the child of a person two doors down, or in an apartment on the floor below you? What about a child living across the street or a mile down the road? Why does geographical distance materially alter the matter of your individual morality? Is it really possible that convenience trumps conscience? Is geography more important than ethics?

  “District Attorney Marconi has repeatedly suggested that the evidence we put forward regarding the humanitarian crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is irrelevant to this trial. Not only is such a position egregiously lacking in principle, it is wrong in law. I shall invoke several precedents to illustrate the error of her argument.

  “In Vermont, during the 1980s, protestors staged sit-ins at the office of U.S. Senator Robert Stafford based on their opposition to American policy in Central America. These actions led to their arrest on trespass charges. The court allowed a number of experts to testify about human rights atrocities in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The defendants testified they had attempted ‘every reasonable manner to communicate’ with the senator. The jury acquitted all of the defendants. Similar cases involving illegal activities directed at U.S. activities in Latin America took place in Massachusetts, Illinois, and other states, resulting in juries acquitting all of the defendants.

  “In this very state, Washington, eight medical doctors were charged with trespassing after protests staged at the home of the South African ambassador. They were allowed to raise the defense of necessity and submit expert testimony about the adverse effects of apartheid on health, justice, and human rights. A Seattle jury acquitted after little more than an hour and made a statement supporting anti-apartheid protests. A similar case involving illegal anti-apartheid protests in Chicago produced the same result—acquittals for all defendants.

  “Contrary to the hyperbolic rhetoric of the prosecution, the necessity defense cannot be used to challenge American values. For example, we value human life over property. No individual could ever justifiably take a human life merely to save some imperiled property. In the case before us, Dr. MacDougall faced a choice between insignificant harm to the health of people in Seattle and a tsunami of preventable deaths in Africa.

  “Ms. Marconi cannot merely wish the necessity defense away. The leading decisions in American jurisprudence affirm its availability. Our history is replete with examples of individuals once considered terrorists whom the passage of time reveals to be heroes. The American patriots who dumped tea into Boston harbor. The Americans who built the underground railroad to free slaves. Women who broke laws in their battle for universal suffrage. The Americans who staged sit-ins and refused to sit at the back of buses, saying no to Jim Crow. Please listen to your consciences and acquit Dr. MacDougall.”

  Chapter 47

  Quarrington and Yavari were cautiously pleased with the way the trial had unfolded. But Michael had finally realized that even in the best-case scenario, an acquittal, his life was in tatters.

  Klinsmann began his instruction to the jury. “There are a number of matters that I must bring to your attention prior to the beginning of your deliberations. First, the Constitution states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Second, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish all elements of the alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, although I would like to direct you to reach a particular verdict, it is not within my power to do so, no matter how conclusive the evidence appears to be. You must consider separately each of the charges against the defendant, after which you may find him: guilty of both charges, guilty of one charge and not the other, or not guilty of either charge.

  “Through the testimony of Dr. Carpenter and the defendant, the defense presented extensive evidence about the problems currently facing sub-Saharan Africa and the shortcomings of American foreign policy. It is my obligation to advise you that from a legal perspective, their evidence is not relevant to your deliberations in this trial. All of the relevant facts involve America, not Africa.”

  Michael gasped. “Does that mean what I think?” he whispered, turning to Quarrington, who nodded.

  Klinsmann ignored the exchange at the defense table. “To successfully rely on the necessity defense, the defendant must meet five mandatory conditions. First, the harm avoided must be greater than the harm done. Second, the defendant must have an honest and reasonable belief that his act is necessary to avoid harm. Third, there must be no legal alternatives. Fourth, the harm to be avoided must be imminent. Fifth, the defendant must not have played a part in bringing about that harm.

  “The first and third elements of the necessity defense have not been met in this case. The defense has failed to demonstrate that all reasonable legal alternatives had been exhausted. There were political avenues open to the defendant, as well as economic avenues not pursued. His decision to take matters into his own hands by a series of brazenly criminal acts cannot be condoned.

  “In addition, the defendant’s personal opinion about the relative balance of harms is not determinative. It is up to me to carefully weigh the relative harm inflicted by the defendant and the relative harm he sought to avoid. And I find that despite his ostensibly good intentions, the defendant caused more harm than he avoided. On the one hand, poisoning Seattle’s water supply caused some people to become physically ill and many people to become frightened. On the other hand, the defendant’s actions did not result in any substantive change to American foreign policy.

  “In conclusion, I find that as a matter of law, the defendant cannot rely on necessity to justify his unlawful acts. I consider myself bound by the precedent in a 1979 case where the Federal Court, Ninth Circuit, found that the necessity defense was not available for robberies and bombings carried out with an honest belief that the capitalist economic system needed to be overthrown to eliminate the inequality between rich and poor. Therefore, it is not open to you to reach a finding of not guilty by reason of the necessity defense. Please remember that as the presiding judge, decisions about the law are mine, and mine alone, to make, while your responsibility is to apply the law to the facts, not decide the case according to the emotional whims of your conscience.”

  “Objection!” Quarrington’s voice reverberated around the courtroom. “Your honor, it is grossly inappropriate for you to effectively direct the jury to a particular verdict by foreclosing their only other option. The raison d’être of a jury is to act as the conscience of society in determining what is just.”

  “Duly noted, Mr. Quarrington, but irrelevant. Your objection is overruled.” Klinsmann returned his attention to the jury. “You mustn’t allow your feelings or your conscience to cloud your judgment. You have an obligation to apply the law to the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. You may now begin your deliberations.”

  * * *

&
nbsp; The jury was taken to the deliberation room adjacent to the courtroom. Michael was taken to a holding cell and would be returned to the SeaTac prison if the jury’s deliberations went on into the evening. Quarrington and Yavari took the elevator down to see him.

  “How long do you think we’ll have to wait?” Michael asked.

  “Impossible to predict,” Quarrington replied. “I have seen them return quickly—the jury only deliberated for four hours in the O.J. Simpson trial—and I have seen them take weeks.”

  “Weeks?”

  “Relax. That is extremely unusual and is always the product of long, complicated trials, unlike this one. Shirin, what do you think?”

  “Technically the jury should elect a foreperson and review the evidence before discussing potential outcomes. New research on the dynamics of jury deliberation indicates that there are usually three or four persuaders, four to six active participants in the discussion, and three or four people who just want to get it over with and go home. They’ll go along with whatever the majority decides. I agree with Peter that predictions are purely speculative. It depends on the people in that locked room.”

  “So we wait?”

  “Yes, and pray, if you are so inclined,” added Quarrington.

  “Or think positive thoughts,” said Yavari.

  “We are going to return to the office,” Quarrington said. “The court will contact us as soon as the jury reaches a verdict.”

  Several hours later Michael was escorted back to SeaTac. The jury, without reaching a resolution, had returned to the Best Western.

  * * *

  “Stryder here.”

  “I listened to our jury’s deliberations today,” Tierney said.

  “And?”

  “There’s a problem.”

  “What the fuck? You said there’d be a quick verdict. That we owned the jury lock, stock, and barrel.”

  “There’s a holdout.”

  “What, someone’s grown a conscience? I thought the money was supposed to take care of that.”

  “It’s Taisha Smith, the single mother from Seattle.”

  “She took the first installment, right?”

  “Yeah.”

  “Maybe she’s trying to play us. Hold out for more money.”

  “We’ve used the honey. Now it’s time for the stick. You have her file?”

  Stryder unlocked a desk drawer and pulled out a folder. “Yup. She’s got an eight-year-old daughter named Shirelle. Staying with her grandmother while the jury is sequestered. Goes to Emerson Elementary on 60th Ave. School ends at 3:10 p.m.”

  “It’s time to send Taisha a message.”

  “I’m on it.”

  Cassie listened to the conversation between Tierney and Stryder. Alan Jones had emailed her the recording. The heads of the FBI and CIA were acting as though they were above the law. Jury tampering. Bribery. Possibly some kind of conspiracy to harm a juror’s child. She had the evidence she needed and immediately made two phone calls. One to the president and one to Jack Gilhooley, Seattle’s chief of police.

  * * *

  At the Best Western Plus Executive Inn in downtown Seattle, incoming calls to the jurors were limited to a preapproved list of family members. So when her phone rang, Taisha was excited, assuming it would be her daughter. Instead she heard a deep male voice.

  “Taisha?”

  “Yes? Who is this?”

  “Stop jerking the jury around. Get the verdict right tomorrow, or the next time you see Shirelle’s face, it will be on the back of a milk carton.”

  The man hung up and Taisha sat down heavily on the bed, sobbing.

  Chapter 48

  The next morning, at 9:15 a.m., the bailiff delivered a message from the jury to Judge Klinsmann. They had a verdict. Phone calls were made to the lawyers and SeaTac prison. A media advisory was issued electronically.

  At ten a.m., the sheriff ushered the jury back into the courtroom. All twelve jurors sat stone-faced.

  Quarrington and Yavari continued to exude quiet confidence. Yavari put her hand atop Michael’s on the table in front of them.

  Cassie was seated in the front row of the public gallery. In the two seats flanking her were a young child with her hair braided in cornrows and Police Chief Gilhooley, an imposing figure in his uniform. Shirelle’s bright smile revealed two missing front teeth. When Taisha Smith looked over at the gallery, she was unable to disguise her surprise at seeing her daughter in the courtroom and waved quickly at Shirelle.

  Klinsmann cleared his throat loudly and glared at the jurors from beneath his prodigious eyebrows. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a verdict?”

  “Yes, your honor, we have,” Rick Johanson, the foreman, replied.

  “Very well.” Klinsmann milked the moment. “Before we hear the verdict, I want to caution everyone to maintain order in this courtroom. Any person violating my instructions will be removed and charged with contempt.”

  Klinsmann turned to face the foreman. “On the first count of the indictment, using a chemical weapon, how do you find the defendant?”

  “In the District Court for the District of Western Washington, Criminal Action No. 18-CR-149, United States vs. Michael MacDougall, we, the jury, upon our oaths unanimously find as follows . . .”

  Yavari squeezed Michael’s hand. He was holding his breath.

  “We find the defendant guilty, your honor,” Johanson answered.

  Despite Klinsmann’s warning, there was a smattering of applause and a few groans. Michael slumped forward, hands covering his face.

  Meanwhile, Klinsmann beamed. “And on the second count of the indictment, committing an act of terrorism, how do you find the defendant?”

  “We find the defendant guilty, your honor.”

  Quarrington scratched his head and blinked slowly. Yavari also looked on in disbelief. Marconi, as cool and polished as ever, merely nodded in agreement, while several of her colleagues punched the air and congratulated each other with high-fives. Journalists whispered into cellphones and typed madly on laptops.

  In the clamor that followed the verdict, a piece of paper folded in half and marked with a Q was passed from the spectator gallery over the railing to Yavari. She handed it to Quarrington, who unfolded the small square of paper. The note was short and to the point.

  It read, Poll the jury!

  Klinsmann was enthusiastically thanking the jury for having completed the first step of their civic duty. “I recognize that jury duty is demanding, interferes with your daily life, and is financially unrewarding. Yet it is a cornerstone of American democracy. Members of the jury, you have determined by your verdict that the evidence established the guilt of Michael MacDougall on these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the defendant should be put to death for these crimes is a question for you to answer by serving as the conscience of the community. Although Congress has given this responsibility exclusively to the jury, the applicable statute and the Constitution command that you must exercise your discretion by following a specific procedure and giving careful consideration to information characterized as ‘aggravating and mitigating factors.’ These facts will be presented in a subsequent hearing that is more or less an extension of this trial.”

  “Your honor.” Quarrington’s voice had lost none of its authority despite the verdict.

  “Yes, Mr. Quarrington, what is it?”

  “Excuse me, your honor, but the defendant would like to exercise his right to poll the jury.”

  “That’s a highly unusual procedure, counselor.”

  Michael leaned toward Quarrington. “What’s going on?”

  Quarrington turned to Michael, putting his finger to his lips. “It has been an unusual trial, your honor.”

  “Does the U.S. attorney have any objection? Any reason for not proceeding with defense counsel’s re
quest?”

  Marconi looked at her team, getting nothing but bemused shrugs. “No, your honor.”

  “Very well. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at this time the court will conduct a brief exercise called polling the jury. The foreperson has delivered a verdict of guilty on both counts. I will now read the names of each individual juror, you will stand, and you will state ‘Yes that is my verdict’ or ‘No that is not my verdict,’ whichever the case might be. Let us proceed. “Elaine Renzetti?”

  “Yes, that is my verdict.”

  Klinsmann nodded. “Rick Johanson?”

  “Yes, that is my verdict.”

  And so it went, juror after juror. Quarrington and Yavari exchanged puzzled glances, struggling to understand who had written the mysterious note, and why. As the process of polling jurors unfolded, there were only two people in the courtroom with the slightest inkling of what was about to happen. Cassie looked on with nervous anticipation. The other person was scared to death.

  Klinsmann mechanically asked the questions, working his way through the jury. “Taisha Smith?”

  Taisha Smith stood with her eyes downcast. She didn’t answer the judge’s question. The buzzing in the courtroom stopped.

  “Taisha Smith,” Klinsmann raised his voice, “is this your verdict?”

  All eyes in the courtroom were now glued on Smith. Her eyes lifted, scanning Michael, the judge, Quarrington, and Marconi, before resting briefly on Shirelle, Chief Gilhooley, and Cassie. Then she returned her gaze to the floor. Several other jurors began to fidget nervously.

  Her answer, when it came, was so soft spoken that it was barely audible.

  “Louder!” Klinsmann barked.