It’s usually quite fascinating to find out how juries
arrive at their conclusions following deliberations.
In the case of State of Washington vs. Darlene Green, jurors
convicted Mrs. Green of
first-degree manslaughter in the death of her husband, William
“Bill” Green, at the couple’s Illahee Road home in June 2010.
We now have a first-hand account of those deliberations
(though
a tweeting juror did give some brief insights earlier). They
come from Megan Tracer, known during the trial as juror No. 11.
She was comfortable answering some questions over email about
the trial. Here’s what she wrote:
Q: Did you enjoy being a part of a jury on a trial with
such subject matter?
A: Don’t know that I can say I enjoyed it, but it was very
interesting. The subject matter was difficult because of what we
saw and it was hard because of the attention needed to hear the
case without prejudice or bias.
Q: Darlene Green’s attorney Roger Hunko felt this was a
“compromise verdict,” that is, the jury didn’t want to convict on
murder but was not fully on board with acquittal either. Do you
feel that was true, and if so, why?
A: I don’t think it was a compromise verdict. I think that with
the information we were given, there wasn’t enough to go with
murder 2. In the beginning, there were a few of us that were
leaning toward murder, but we could not say there was motive and
intent with what information we had to work with. I know there was
a lot that was not brought up at trial, and without more
information I don’t think we could have gotten to murder.
Q: Did the jury ever vote to ascertain where people
stood? And if so, how did it start and change?
A: Yes. In the beginning we had I believe three people that
thought she was guilty of murder 2 and split 6/6 on manslaughter.
When we voted again on Friday morning, we only had two that thought
guilty of murder and nine guilty of manslaughter. After
discussions, we decided there wasn’t enough information to say she
had motive for murder and focused on manslaughter. We decided that
because of the confession and the evidence that supported the
confession and nothing supporting Darlene Green’s testimony, she
was guilty of pulling the trigger. We voted 11/1 guilty on
manslaughter, then shortly after agreed unanimously on guilty of
manslaughter and not guilty of murder.
Q: How did you feel personally about the evidence
presented?
A: I personally believe that the evidence supporting the
confession was there. Everything lined up with what Darlene Green
said she did to all the officers she spoke with on the day of the
murder. The defense gave a good theory, but I think it was just
that – a theory. You can say that a crime happened a number of
ways, but does the evidence show that? For me, I don’t think that
it did. It could make sense to some, but there was too many other
options to go with that. After Mrs. Green’s testimony, I could not
see that the evidence supported what she said happened. She said he
was at the end of the foot rest, that he fell on her and rolled off
but the body position did not line up with that. Then she said that
she didn’t remember, but she did. Then the comments she made about
“What is the big deal?” and having a casual conversation about
retirement. The evidence from the state I could not find reasonable
find doubt in, but the defense I could.
Q: Who had the better case, in your opinion?
A: I think both could have been better, but would have to go
with the state. They proved for me beyond a reasonable doubt that
Darlene Green shot her husband on that day and thought because he
told her to, it was ok to do. From the pictures and the expert
witnesses supporting her confession, they did a good job of
presenting the evidence. The defense gave good evidence supporting
their theory, but I think there were too many holes showing that
something else could have happened, and information left out that
should have been talked about. The robe that the defense said had
no blood on the upper portion was incorrect. There was blood all
over the arms of the robe, so for me that was something that put a
lot of questions in their witnesses. Also, the doctor who was given
information by Mr. Hunko to support suicide, but said he had no
patients who had done so. Mrs. Green’s testimony I don’t think
helped them either. With her saying she didn’t remember, but
then said she remembered certain things, then the big ball of
stars… that didn’t make sense to me. Nothing about her testimony
made me think that Mr. Green shot himself or that what she said
happened did. I do think that both sides could have done better
though. It seems there was more information about their past
that would have been relevant to this trial, but we did not hear
that. Had we known some of the things I have heard since, we
may have believed there was a motive for murder. Also, I think that
if Mr. Hunko had been more forthcoming with the blood on the robe
and given a reason for it being there, we could have had an
explanation for it being there other than she shot him. Could have
caused more doubt.
Q: How did you feel about (attorney) Roger
Hunko?
A: I think that Mr. Hunko has a big heart and that he is very
close to this case. I believe that he really did a good job at
keeping elements out of the case that would have made it easier to
convict of murder and that he brought up some doubt with the void
theory, but not reasonable. He seemed a little disorganized and all
over the place, but with what he was working with, think he did a
good job.
Q: How did you feel about (deputy prosecutor) Kevin
“Andy” Anderson?
A: I believe that Mr. Anderson had a difficult job here. Having
to bring forward a case like this, it could not have been easy on
him. I think that he was very straightforward and to the point,
which almost seemed cold at times, but worked for getting his point
across. He did a really good job at presenting the evidence to
support the charges and to break down what the defense was
presenting also.
Q: How difficult was it to convict an 81-year-old
woman?
A: It was VERY difficult to convict her. We had to put things
into a different perspective to not think about her age. What if it
had been our father or grandfather? Would we feel differently? What
if it was a 30 year old woman? Would we feel different? We also
were asked in jury selection if that would be a problem and were
told that we had to remember a crime was committed and that we had
to know we were there to be a judge of the evidence and not a judge
of the law. It is the job of the judge to enforce the law and give
her a sentence, not us. We had to remind ourselves of that
several times during deliberations. It was brought up by some
asking what would happen to her and others reminded us that we
could not think about what would happen to her because that was not
for us to decide. We could only look at what was presented to
us and if she did it or not. I will say though that after the
verdict was read and I left the courtroom, I was almost in tears.
It was very hard to look at her in the courtroom and know
that she would be going to jail. I am glad that we left the
courtroom before seeing her handcuffed and took off to jail. That
was really hard to read in the article later. I can say though it
would have been hard if it was a 30 year old too though!!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
| Make the first comment »
Loading ...
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Recent Comments