Like a fly on the wall, even though I was a police officer, I got to sit in the jury room during deliberations. To say it was enlightening would be an understatement!
In the early 1980s Plano Police Department was one of the first in the nation to tape DUI suspects during book-in. That was long before in-car cameras recorded the driving or the suspect during arrest, but at least the recording of book-in contained some information regarding the suspect’s condition.
Before the invention of VHS or Betamax, video recorders used reel to reel tapes winding through a large, heavy machine separate from a large video camera and a separate microphone. I was the only person at Plano PD who could reliably thread the tape through the series of spools and recording heads to record or play back the tape on the complex machine.
My job included making sure a fresh tape was loaded and ready to record before I got off duty in the evening and checking the machine first thing when I arrived the next morning. I also cataloged and stored the tapes in the evidence vault. When a DUI went to trial, I had to pack up the machine and take it to court, plug it into a TV set, and play the recording for the court.
At one trial, after both sides had closed and the jury was out deliberating, the bailiff brought the judge a note. The jury wanted to see the video again in the jury room.
The judge called me up to the bench and asked if I could reconnect the tape machine and TV in the jury room. I said I could, and he proceeded to admonish me in the strictest of terms that I was to go in like a robot, not say a word, not answer questions asked by any juror, not show any emotions or make any facial expressions, or in any way communicate anything to the jury. The judge also instructed the bailiff to watch me closely to ensure I did not violate his order.
With that, the bailiff led me to the jury room with the recorder and TV on a cart. I set the machine up and played the tape again. The jury asked me to back up and replay one part several times. The bailiff nodded his okay.
The part they wanted to see was the defendant taking off his necklace when instructed to do so by the arresting officer. On the film, the defendant reached behind his neck and for a full sixty seconds or more, didn’t move as he fumbled with the clasp.
The jury sent the bailiff back out with a note that if the defendant was wearing the same necklace in court, they wanted to see it. Baffled, the bailiff took their note out to the judge. I seemed to have been forgotten sitting in the corner. Afraid to move, I just sat there like a statue.
When the bailiff returned with the necklace, each juror in turn put it on, then took it off and passed it to the next juror. No juror took more than five seconds to unclasp the necklace. Based on that little experiment, the verdict was unanimous. If it took the suspect a full minute or more to undo the clasp during book-in, he must have been drunk. The verdict: Guilty of DUI.