Well, my jury duty- in this case as a juror on State v. McIntire has been completed. The defendant was charged with 4 residential burglaries; the evidence against him was, as is typical in these types of things, very thin: no evidence of him actually atthe crime scene, although there was evidence of possession of stolen property.
On 2 of the burglaries, one Seargant testified that the defendant was confessing, and agreed to take the officers on a "ride around," identifying houses that were violated. The only problem was that there was no written record of this, other than a report written several days after the fact, there was no signed confession - despite the fact that the defendant was apparently doing this after he was "Mirandized," and, there was no recorded record, because, as one Seargant Eastman of the Clark County WA sherriff's office testified, audio recordings in automobiles had "too much noise" for them to be used by the Clark County Sherriffs.
Which, in my professional opinion, was complete, total, steaming bullshit, and possibly perjury, especially since my fellow jurors were incredulous that a cop would lie under oath. Indeed, it's not like their office is totally unfamiliar with such technology. Moreover, in my experience (developing further technology originally developed by Earnest Ashkenazy, who did work on acoustic analysis for the John F. Kennedy assasination, thereby connecting me with the alleged vast conspiracy therein) it is possible to pull voice signals out of noise when the noise is at levels experienced in the cockpit of an F-15- enough noise to make your ears bleed without protection.
That this technology in the 25 years since it was first developed has made its way into the law enforcement field is illustrated here.
I have offered my services to the defense as an expert witness if they need any additional help.
Verdict: guilty on 2 counts, hung jury on 2. The prosecution, I am told, intends to retry on the other 2 counts. I am hoping there is a perjury indictment as well based on what I heard there. There is more I know about what's going on in response to this (and there is something going on), but I cannot mention it at this time.
What was odd to me was the fantastic level of denial among my fellow jurors- while I had my doubts about whether all of the police officers' testimony was tainted (there were 2 officers), I could not, reasonably, find the other officer's testimony tainted to the point where I would throw it out. But whether it is a reasonable doubt or not, it still nags me that somebody "with his career on the line" would blatantly make what to me seemed like a bald-faced lie. The other jurors believed the cop becasue "his career" was on the line; but I saw blatant arrogance.