This blog may be difficult for some of you to read. If you choose to go on please know that I am relaying my honest account of my time as a juror, and I apologize in advance for any discomfort I may cause.
You all know I not only reported for, but also was seated on a jury the day after Memorial Day. The process was interesting as the judge revealed details about the case that seemed more in-depth than I would have imagined prior to juror questionnaires being completed, but I guess prejudices would need to be uncovered if a fair and impartial jury of the defendant’s peers were to be selected. This man is NOT my peer. I don’t know him nor do I recall hearing of his past crimes as I was living out of the area when they were committed. But I bet some of you do.
David Lord violently raped three women in Westport, Dartmouth and Fall River, Massachusetts in 1982. He was released after 12 years of incarceration and sex offender treatment only to reoffend in 1994, this time sexually assaulting and beating one woman, and beating a second woman who tried to assist his victim. He was incarcerated at the state prison in Shirley, MA where he either refused to enter treatment or didn’t know treatment existed, we’ve been told both, and for the past two years has been incarcerated at the Bristol County House of Corrections where sex offender treatment is not available. He was an alcohol and drug abuser during the times he committed his crimes, and while AA and NA were both offered in prison
he chose not to attend. His lawyer supported that decision, as what is said in a prison AA meeting is not considered confidential. I’m not sure the lawyer was looking out for his client’s best interests. Additionally, over the course of his latest 18-year incarceration he was sanctioned for having nude photographs of women, contraband in a prison facility. He was also caught selling food products and earphones (running a small canteen out of laundry carts), and received punishment for both. The trial in which I participated as a juror was to determine if he was a sexually dangerous person and whether he would reoffend if released from prison at the end of his sentence.
I answered truthfully on the questionnaire when asked if I, or anyone in my family, had been the victim of a violent crime. My darling late sister-in-law, the poet Susan Bullock, was sexually assaulted as a young teenager, and never reported the crime.
This repressed memory came to the surface many years later and some would say was potentially the cause of her psychotic break. She fought her illness valiantly for many years, functioning at a very high level, creating beautiful, heart-rending poetry and being our wonderful sister, daughter and friend until the world was too much for her. I have missed her every day for five years and three months. The judge asked how long ago this crime was committed, and whether I believed I could be impartial. Interestingly, I said I thought I could.
Did I lie? No. I’m capable of hearing testimony and coming to a conclusion based on evidence. Will I be emotional about this? Probably. And I would be even if Susan had not been assaulted. Incarceration? The guy should have been drawn and quartered.
Or better still been made some big, tattooed, white supremacist’s prison bitch. I’m sure I speak for all women when I say that rape is probably the scariest, most horrifying crime any of us could ever imagine having to endure. So maybe a little bit of me was angling for a chance to keep this guy off the street for good. But I’ll listen. The night of jury selection I dreamt of Susan. It was a wonderful dream, she was
laughing and happy, and I got to hug her for a really long time. I was crying when I woke up. The evening of the first day of testimony we happened upon a PBS music special which we had no intention of watching, but the musicians began playing the remake of Somewhere Over the Rainbow, which was the song played at the tribute to Susan given at the Cambridge Women’s Shelter on whose board she served. It was followed by a children’s chorus singing the Doxology, which we sang at Susan’s memorial service. I told Steve, “Your sister is flying all around us tonight,” but I couldn’t tell him why. As the judge instructed, I just have to keep and open mind and open heart as I go through this trial. David Lord did not assault our Susan, and the outcome, no matter what, will not bring her back. Watching the prosecutor and the defense attorney is actually very close to a lot of what you see on TV. Expert witnesses are presented by one and refuted by the other. Silly, inane nits like typos are discussed at great length in an effort to discredit witnesses. There are “Gotcha!” moments. But the most interesting thing to me was how forensic psychologists could, based on their employment by either the defense or Department of Corrections, come to such vastly different conclusions about the same man.
The national rate of recidivism for rapists is 6%, in Massachusetts its 4%. An actuarial guide for forensic psychologists lists risk factors including age (David Lord is 53 years old, supposedly at the declining age for reoffense), opportunity, family relationships, work availability, and the presence of a mental abnormality or a paraphilia (sadism, fetishes, pedophilia, etc.) in determining risk. These experts can’t even agree on a diagnosis. Are they even talking to the same guy? The Department of Corrections (DoC) forensic psychologists use guidelines established and agreed to by the DoC. These include tests that are developed using data specific to groups with mental illness or sexual paraphilia. That means their control groups were sexual offenders or people with mental illness, depending on the tool. One of the defense counsel’s forensic psychologists used totally different tests, whose control groups were the general population. The DoC psychologists met the defendant twice over a two-year period whereas the defense psychologists met the guy twice in a six-week period. So two DoC forensic psychologists say the guy is a risk to reoffend after studying and interviewing the defendant over a multiple year period using tests based on sex offender behavior, and two defense psychologists, one of whom used tests normalized on the general population met the guy twice and say he’s fine, go ahead, let him out into the general population.
The defense made an attempt to tug at our heartstrings using an elderly neighbor of the Lord’s who says she has known the family for 40 years. She testified she would trust him to live in her house with her, and that he has a kind side. Hmm. For 30 of those 40 years the guy’s been in jail. This woman had to be 80, so 40 years ago she would not have been “a woman between 18 and 24”, David Lord’s victim profile. She was probably pretty safe. Not sure what the attorney was thinking, and if this was the best he could do for a character witness that tells me the pickings were slim. During closing arguments both the prosecutor and defense attorneys made compelling arguments as to why this guy should remain in custody, or be freed. I think all of the jurors agreed that David Lord is a scumbag. If we could commit him for that alone this trial would have been simple.
The judge’s orders were explicit on the law and what could be used to determine whether David Lord is a sexually dangerous person today. There were three elements that needed to be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
Burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense. The first element was conviction of sexual assault. We all agreed on that one. Second was whether the defendant had a “Mental Abnormality, a congenital or acquired condition of a person that affects the emotional or volitional capacity of the person in a manner that predisposes that person to the commission of criminal sexual acts to a degree that makes the person a menace to the health and safety of other persons, or a Personality Disorder, a congenital or acquired physical or mental condition that results in a general lack of power to control sexual impulses.” 1 The third element was whether the defendant was likely to reoffend today. Lucky me, the judge chose me to be foreperson. His instructions, of which there were 12 pages, specified not to take a straw vote. So where do we start?
Based on David Lord’s criminal history and the number of women on the jury I would have thought the leanings would have been to commit him. I was very wrong. Most of the women and a couple of the men argued that David Lord would have had opportunity in prison to use drugs and alcohol, and an opportunity in prison for sexual activity, even rape if he was so inclined, as there are women working in prisons. They claimed that the few grievances against him over an 18-year period showed that he was in control of his actions, and along with his age and conditions of parole he would be a low risk for recidivism. Five of us argued he’d been on parole and reoffended after his first incarceration, so his risk for reoffense was 100% in our eyes. The others asked if we’d do the same things we did 18 years ago.
Wouldn’t we have rethought our earlier deeds? We responded that he’d be placed into the same situation as during his previous release; living with family in the same house, same group of people around him, probably the same access to drugs and alcohol. And at 53 he was still a big, fit looking man, who possibly hasn’t had sex in 18 years. Wouldn’t these all be triggers? They responded that the provisions of included sex offender counseling, urine tests, AA and NA meetings. We responded he’d not be the first parole violator in the State of Massachusetts. And if
he reoffends some young woman’s life is destroyed. Beyond a reasonable doubt was continually bandied about, and the very vague definition read aloud multiple times.
We knew we were not going to agree on whether or not he would reoffend. We looked at whether we could agree on whether he had a mental abnormality or personality disorder. Four forensic and/or clinical psychologists could not agree on a diagnosis, and quite frankly, none of them worked with him long enough to be able to say with reasonable certainty if he had a mental abnormality. We went through what felt like reams of reports and psych evaluations. Did he have anti social behavior traits? Yes, but not enough of them to be diagnosed as anti-social. And did 1 MA General Laws, Chapter 123A, Section 1 you know that rape, or sex without consent, is not considered a paraphelia? Nope, doesn’t show up anywhere on the list of nasty items that could be used to determine a personality disorder; it is a crime, period. None of us could say with any certainty that under the law he had a mental abnormality or a personality disorder. Defeated, I looked a the group and said, “Well, that’s it then. He has to meet all three criteria, and if we all agree he doesn’t meet the conditions of element number two then we can’t find him a sexually dangerous person.” We were going to have to let this monster back out on the street. We had deliberated for four hours. I dated and signed the verdict slip and rang for the court officer. My heart was pounding out of my chest when we were in the courtroom and the verdict was read.
I couldn’t look at any of them; the defendant, his family, and especially the prosecutor, who I think did an outstanding job. If this is justice it doesn’t feel very just.
Being told from day to day not to discuss the case with fellow jurors, spouses, family, or media, listen or read about it in the news, or search the details on the Internet was torture. At the end of the day I just wanted to get this off my chest, but couldn’t (with the exception of this written account that I’ve been keeping over the course of the trial). I drove home in a fog and upon arrival burst into tears in my husband’s arms. I feel like this was just so very wrong. I hope that David Lord’s parole officer is diligent and keeps him on a short leash, and I pray David Lord is not a recidivist.
Young women of the Southcoast I urge you to be cautious and aware. And I hope Susan knows how much I wish the outcome could have been different.
