Trial Diary

May 2, 2000

Jury Selection

As I made my way up MIllersport Highway to Niagara County's courthouse in Lockport on a warm May day in 2000, I reminded myself not to become part of the story.

I was going to the trial of People v. Michael Northrup to melt into the woodwork, so that I could gain as objective a view of the evidence and testimony as possible. In fact, I wanted to place myself in the position of a juror. Like a juror, I would be passively attentive -- and I would not consider the guilt or innocence of Michael Northrup until the case was "handed to the jury" after the judge gave his instructions.

In addition to the trial notes, I would also keep a Trial Diary consisting of my observations of the sights and events outside the courtroom. The Trial Diary section of my notebook would contain details about any contacts I had with people related to the trial in the course of the trial. I had already learned that these notes -- the discipline of writing them all down -- would help me to maintain objectivity.

Trial Notes, p. 1

My "juror perspective" would not be exact, however. Unlike jurors in New York State, I would take notes -- lots of notes -- so that I could analyze the trial later, sort out the meanings of what I heard and saw in the courtroom (and around the edges of the case in lobbies and hallways and elevators). The analysis I anticipated would not be bound by the pressure of arriving at a verdict either, although I was always interested in whether my "verdict" agreed with the jury's decision.

My notes of trial testimony would be as close to a transcript as I could manage. I chose paper and pens carefully. Cramped fingers would slow me down and I would pay for that discomfort later with gaps -- why did I always lose the important details?

I had already learned that these notes -- the discipline of writing them all down -- would help me to maintain objectivity. The trial diary would assist me to re-capture the ambiance of the trial later, because I already knew that what happens in the well of the court during the formal presentation of a case may only be a part of the trial.

In fact, the reason for voluminous notes was that -- on the fly -- I could not easily discern the important from the trivial details. I could discard trivia later, but later would be too late to re-capture something important that I had missed.

I had been attending trials and psychology/law conferences for about fifteen years -- ever since I began my research on the criminal justice's system's response to family violence . Each trial was different; each was in many ways unpredictable.

What drew me to People v. Northrup was that this time a woman, Annette Montstream, would be testifying against the person she allegedly induced to kill her husband. And -- apparently, she did not arrange her husband's murder as an act of self-defense. I had never heard a woman testify about the murder she had planned, and I wanted to see what I could learn about her personality -- not that anyone is really themselves on the witness stand -- and about her crime.

As to the unpredictability of the coming trial, all I knew was that the murder trials I had previously attended and written about were both tedious and surprising. As usual, I had no idea how this one would evolve, but I expected to be bored, disgusted, anxious, and surprised into greater understanding both of the psychology of this crime and the legal issues surrounding it.

The trial was expected to take three weeks.

I had been in the courtroom for less than thirty minutes when the defense attorney created a scene.

First, Judge Peter Broderick excused the prospective jurors for ten minutes. Then, he sent them to lunch. While the jurors were out of the courtroom, the (White) defense attorney made a Batson objection on behalf of his (White) client.

 

Parrinello questioned 3 Prosecution challenges under Batson. The judge was clearly nonplussed. "Why?"

"The prosecutors are attempting to eliminate Italian-Americans because they share my ethnicity" the attorney responded.

( But that isn't covered under Batson. Batson is about eliminating Black jurors on the basis of race.)Lundquist argued that one man had a bad attitude and was vacillating and that the other clearly identified with the defendant -- as a single man living at home.

The African-American woman was excused because she exhibited memory problems -- she couldn't remember if her brother works as a trooper or in the Niagara County Sheriff's Department. Also, she has severe arthritis and her medication dulls her thinking.

Also, it's not an ethnic-based excuse, because they didn't challenge the African American man on the panel.

Judge Broderick said one of the Italian American's answers to questions were so ridiculous he would have excused him for cause if the prosecution hadn't used a peremptory challenge. (Trial Notes, p.1)

What's wrong with this picture?

May 15, 2000

Prosecution Case

First day of testimony I've attended. During a break:

John Montstream's father (also John Montstream) approached us -- I was with someone else from the Family Violence Intervention Program -- and asked us why we're here -- he asked for my business card. I told him a little of the domestic violence intervention efforts here and of my support of that effort -- He's in good hands.

[That is what I said -- I was wrong.]