Introduction

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Jennifer M. Johnson

Johnson claimed that she noticed Star’s bruises, but was unaware of any abuse. She testified that Star was a “rough-and-tumble” kid and that she did not seek medical attention because doctors could do nothing for bruises. The prosecution contended that Johnson knew about the abuse, but failed to intervene to protect Wise.

The Deliberation

The three Williams students argued that no agreement was necessary, since “permit” means to afford the opportunity for; if Johnson did nothing to stop the abuse, she would be guilty. Indeed, Commonwealth v. Garcia, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 419, 422-423 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999) confirms that G. L. c. 265, § 13J was meant to codify parents’ duty to protect their children and to criminalize acts of omission. The court also states that circumstantial evidence, such as awareness of injuries, may be used to establish a caregiver’s knowledge of abuse. Still, the court notes that actual knowledge is unnecessary: the legal standard requires only that an ordinary person in the same circumstances would have recognized that the child was in danger.

The confusion surrounding the legal standard prompted the jury to request that the instructions be repeated. The judge complied, although without any further clarification. When the jury then asked for a written copy, he replied that the instructions were compiled from various sources and could not be assembled for the jury. The jurors returned to deliberations with little additional insight, but the students reiterated the judge’s instruction on the ordinary person standard. The students argued that even if Johnson was ignorant of Star’s abuse, an ordinary person in Johnson’s situation would have acted differently. Furthermore, Johnson stated that during the time of the abuse, Star and Wise were never alone. The students argued that if Johnson were always present, it would be implausible that she had not observed any abuse. Subsequently, all jurors conceded that they would not have believed that Star’s injuries were accidental and would have sought treatment. Each juror also acknowledged that Johnson must have seen or heard the abuse based how brutally Star must have been battered to sustain her injuries. One juror admitted, “She really hung herself with her testimony.” Yet, these same jurors remained undecided, arguing that Johnson may not have had the resources to leave Wise; Johnson had been homeless since Wise’s arrest. Several jurors argued these provided extenuating circumstances for Johnson’s actions.

The older jurors, especially the parents, could perhaps see their own guilt in Johnson. At one somewhat bizarre moment, several jurors admitted that they, too, had bitten their children. Johnson claimed that she knew Wise had bitten Star, though not as hard as medical records indicated. Johnson stated that Star had bitten Wise in a tantrum and to show her that this hurt, Wise bit Star back. None of the Williams students found this explanation persuasive.

The Conclusion

• The logical fallacy in testing whether a windy general comment about the intellectual culture of the modern university made a generation ago by a Straussian philosopher predicts the behavior of a handful of student jurors in a college town assault trial decades later is too obvious to require any extended discussion.

• Get the Bloom business out of the essay, as utterly irrelevant, however, and what have we left? Obviously the legal question being debated by the jury has an answer. You quote the charge--mangling it completely in the process, rather than stating it crisply and accurately, as you should--but you should have checked and provided an authoritative legal answer out of the Massachusetts cases: you're a law student now, not a juror anymore.

• As it would then be obvious that the jurors who insisted on the correct legal standard were those voting to convict, you would be left with issues about the voir dire that you don't clear up, and a rather strong impression that the prosecution wanted smart jurors who weren't parents and the defense wanted duller-witted jurors whose social backgrounds suggested (to the extent that such people can be found in Berkshire County) that they might have used corporal punishment themselves in their child-raising. Who was from Pittsfield and who from Williamstown might be useful to know, for example, as would the professions or employments of the other jurors. How to see this as a conflict between absolutists and relativists I cannot begin to fathom.

Student Jurors and Liberal Education: A Case Study

-- By SamanthaWilliams - 12 April 2008

Introduction

Allan Bloom’s writings on American higher education are not unlike the critiques considered in class. Bloom discusses the defects of universities in educating students, especially at elite institutions. As he notes above, these inadequacies increase as students pursue professional degrees. Bloom also contemplates the students who are part of this educational system; “Almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative” (The Closing of the American Mind 25). Bloom claims that students are moral relativists, intent on maintaining open minds and never declaring absolutes.

Although conventional wisdom asserts that attorneys generally oppose educated jurors, perhaps Bloom’s theory of university students would make them appealing; given certain circumstances, even criminal acts could be justified. This may describe the logic of the attorney representing Jennifer Johnson, a woman charged last year with permitting another to commit assault and battery upon a child under Massachusetts state law. While several jurors were eliminated, four members who were selected without questioning were Williams College students.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Jennifer M. Johnson

Johnson claimed that she noticed Star’s bruises, but was unaware of any abuse. She testified that Star was a “rough-and-tumble” kid and that she did not seek medical attention because doctors could do nothing for bruises. The prosecution contended that Johnson knew about the abuse, but failed to intervene to protect Wise.

The Deliberation

The three Williams students argued that no agreement was necessary, since “permit” also means to afford the opportunity for or possibility of; if Johnson knew about the abuse but did nothing to stop it, she would be guilty. Even if Johnson was ignorant of Star’s abuse, the standard given to the jury was that Johnson knew and failed to act or any reasonable person would have known and would have acted differently. Furthermore, Johnson stated that during the time of the alleged abuse, Star and Wise were never alone. The Williams students argued that if Johnson were always present, it would be implausible that she had not observed any abuse.

Subsequently, all jurors conceded that they would not have believed that Star’s injuries were accidental and would have sought treatment. Each juror also acknowledged that Johnson must have seen or heard the abuse based how brutally Star must have been battered to sustain such injuries. One juror admitted, “She really hung herself with her testimony.” Yet, these same jurors remained undecided, instead arguing that Johnson may not have had the resources to leave Wise. Since Wise’s arrest, Johnson had resided in a homeless shelter. Several jurors argued these provided extenuating circumstances for Johnson’s actions – an argument not presented by the defense. This reflects Bloom’s hypothesis: “Perhaps they believe that evil deeds are performed by persons who, if they got the proper therapy, would not do them again – that there are evil deeds, not evil people. (Id at 67). However, it was a group of older jurors and not the students who subscribed to this belief.

It seems that the older jurors, especially the parents, could perhaps see their own guilt in Johnson. At one somewhat bizarre moment, several jurors admitted that they, too, had bitten their children. Johnson claimed that she knew Wise had bitten Star, though not as hard as medical records showed. Johnson stated that Star had bitten Wise in a tantrum and to show her that this hurt, Wise bit Star back. None of the Williams students found this explanation persuasive.

The Conclusion