[Nat]

I loved a person very dearly who was convicted of attempted murder.

I also knew a woman whose boyfriend took a knife and murdered her child in front of her and then almost killed her. He got the death penalty.

I also served on the jury for a capital murder trial and helped convict a person - the only black person (who was also legally though not totally blind) in the entire trial - who probably did not pull the trigger. (A russian guy confessed to being the person who pulled the trigger while in jail, according to the testimony of another inmate, but the russian was allowed to return to russia in exchange for testifying for the grand jury against the guy we convicted).

I was the only person on the jury who didn't immediately agree to the guilty verdict. The only person who wanted to go back through all the things that had been said during the trial. It was only after hours of arguing against 11 other jurors that the foreman re-read the instructions which said we were to find him guilty if we believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he had actually murdered the person or if through intentional or negligent action, a reasonable person could have predicted his actions could have led to the person's death. (This is the closest I can come to remembering the instructions - it's been a while). With that instruction, I was able to look at his actions and say they met the criteria. We found him guilty. He was sentenced to life in prison and he'll have no chance for parole until he is 70 years old.

It wasn't a death penalty case. If it had been a death penalty case, I would have been eliminated during jury selection. I would guess that in a death penalty trial, if they eliminate all jurors who disagree with the death penalty, that the jurors left are probably of a more punitive mind and more likely to convict. That's just a guess.

There was one black woman who was near the front of the jury selection, but the prosecutor asked each one of us if we'd be willing to sentence a person to life in prison, and she said no and was eliminated. I still remember the white woman sitting across to me that said, "Come on, Natalie, these people aren't like us!" in response to some question I had. Maybe she wasn't talking about race, but looking back, I really don't know what else she meant. I guess she could have meant "pot dealers" or "criminals." I think she was probably the same age as my mom - everybody in there was older than me by at least 10 years (I think I was 23 at the time).

The defense lawyer did not defend the guy very well. She left huge gaps in his case, she left out critical information. After the trial was over, she caught me in the hallway and asked me for my perspective on the case. I gave her an ear-full about her defense and gave a huge list of things she could have done better. A friend of a friend used to be a prosecutor, and I mentioned her to him, and he said she was one of the best public defenders he'd seen.

So, you know, I think I followed the instructions provided by the court and I do think his actions could have predictably led to the victim's death whether or not he pulled the trigger. It was his idea to rob the guy, it was his idea to take him to a secluded area to do it. It was his idea to invite his brother-in-law and a russian guy who liked to brag about being part of the russian mafia along for the robbery. He wasn't a nice guy. But was he guilty of capital murder? Should a person be convicted of capital murder if he didn't pull the trigger?

I don't know if maybe that trial was unusual, but I suspect it was pretty run-of-the-mill. I wasn't impressed. I wasn't impressed with the way the justice system is set up to work. I don't think he was tried by a jury of his peers. I don't think he had a competent lawyer. I don't think it's fair that the person who bragged about killing the victim is living free with his girlfriend in Russia, and the guy we convicted of capital murder may or may not live to breathe free air again even though he didn't pull the trigger.

I see the justice system as far too flawed to handle the responsibility of deciding a person should be put to death. Death is irreversible.

The Innocence project has cleared the names of 261 people based on DNA evidence alone. Those are just a small sliver of cases where DNA evidence existed and was preserved.