Practice Trial of Thomas Richardson
During Jury Selection - Plus Final Arguments
Audio and Jury Verdict Conclusions

   Perceptions From the Jury Selection Process
   For a Trial of Thomas Richardson for the
         Alleged Murder of His Wife
                                                
During a jury selection process of 02/27/08 and 
02/28/08, at the Schoolcraft County Courthouse, 
for the trial of Thomas (Tom) Richardson, for
alleged murder, I was a rejected member of the
potential jury pool from which the jury for the
pending trial was chosen. I chose to witness the
entire jury selection process, except for a few
minutes that I nodded off, after lunch, on
02/28/08.

Before jury selection, the only knowledge I had of
the incident, for which Thomas Richardson is charged
with murder, was a couple of brief news statements 
from WNMU radio, shortly after the time of the 
incident. Beyond mild curiosity, at the time, I 
had no interest beyond the outcome of a likely 
future trial that would be reported, eventually.

My primary interest in the jury selection process 
were the legal concepts and procedures, regarding 
what I have come to learn, as an "Ol' Geezer", is 
little more than my irrational belief, for most of
my life, in the de facto subjective practices of 
the religion of Juris Prudence. I have come to 
learn that a claimed and generally objective 
process of law enforcement and adjudication, that 
I was lead to believe existed, for most of my 
life, is, too often, a competition of little more
than lies of a professional confidence game by one
advocate vs. the reality represented by another,
refereed by the court.

From the information given the jury, and the 
questions asked, by both the prosecuting and 
defense attorneys, I understood or inferred the 
following, correctly or incorrectly. Please note 
that what I express, here, are 100% my perceptions 
and inferences, as a potential juror, during a 
"voir dire" process. My personal views, right or 
wrong, concern unverified information provided by 
others with professional credentials, history, and 
specific intents unknown to me, beyond whatever I 
understood, inferred, or imagined during the jury 
selection process, closed to the public:


Even though lip service was paid by the presiding 
judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney, 
to the premise that the jurors were to base their 
decision upon the evidence, and not upon 
statements made by the respective attorneys, it 
was obvious, to me, that both the prosecution and 
defense were picking jury members that were most 
likely to accept their respective various
arguments, concerning the nature of, value, 
validity, context, and meaning of actual evidence 
and circumstances, referred to, specifically, or 
abstractly.

Both prosecution and defense sought a likely jury 
foreperson, acceptable to both the prosecution and 
defense, with the social and professional skills 
to influence and/or coordinate jury considerations. 

Both prosecution and defense sought a malleable 
jury that would, most likely, be influenced to 
accept the respective perceptions of the 
prosecution or defense advocates. 

Both prosecution and defense sought jury members 
with a limited ability to understand abstractions 
- sufficient to understand the legal advocate's 
abstract concepts, but not enough to think "out of 
the box" of the abstraction selected by the 
advocate. (To think out of the box, is to consider 
theories that are contrary to the respective goals 
of the defense or prosecution strategy.)

Both prosecution and defense sought sociable 
jurists - those that "work well with others" to 
determine a verdict which all jury members could 
agree upon. Less than "all" means a "hung jury", 
with no conviction or acquittal.

Both prosecution and defense sought a jury that 
would be, most likely, sympathetic to whatever 
intended defense or prosecution theories and 
arguments they intended to present that jury,
during the trial. 

Both prosecution and defense chose to ignore the 
public address system microphones, perhaps to
ensure that many of the waiting potential jurors
filling the court room could not hear all the prior 
questioning, prompting, and instructions.
Subsequently, both the prosecution and defense
attorneys repeated their questions, prompting,
and instructions, for over 12 1/2 hours, during
almost two full of days of the jury selection
process, in an attempt to ensure that the potential
jurors remembered the information and concepts that
the prosecution and defense attorneys wanted
them to remember, and consider during the
trial.

Both prosecution and defense sought a jury to 
"Think as we wish", sufficiently compliant to be 
lead to the pretrial understandings and 
conclusions covered during the jury selection
process.


Defense

I understood the defense's repetitive questions
and prompting, regarding "hypothetical" allegations,
circumstances, evidence, context, and theories,
concerning the defendant's alleged murder of his
wife, to mean the following:

This is a murder case.

The defense alleges the wife's death is an accident. 

The site of the death is a treacherous cliff-side
wilderness, conducive to serious accidents.

Thomas Richardson's closed head trauma effected his 
personality

Defendant's emotional expression has been 
impaired by trauma

Thomas Richardson lacked the ability to express
grief in a "normal" manner

Defendant's wife's knowledge of her possible grave
illness death was reason for completing a will

Defendant's wife may have committed suicide to 
conclude her perception of an unacceptable and
irresolvable cancer based health problem

Defendant's wife suffered from serious symptoms of 
depression

Thomas Richardson committed no act of murder, 
and never considered the consequences of a 
possible divorce as a motive for murder.

Misinterpretation of the defendant's truck driver 
jargon is no indication of the intent or 
commission of murder.

Bickering is not a precursor for murder, 
or, necessarily, an indicator of a failed marriage

Extended family and associates' testimony about 
perceived strained marriage problems is little 
more than an expression of third party personal 
opinion, colored by personal bias.

Seeking, considering, and noting testimony for one 
side of an alleged crime, primarily, is an 
expression of self-serving bias that tends to 
corrupt the investigative process.

"Modern" criminal procedure, and the "old 
fashioned way", includes using and preserving all 
documented investigative information, of all 
facets of an investigation of a serious crime.

"Modern" criminal procedures include the use of 
common, cheap, and readily available modern tools 
to document, and record interviews and 
interrogations.

"Modern criminal procedures" include the use of 
cameras and tape measures to properly document the 
physical environment of an alleged crime site.

An unrecorded extensive interview or interrogation 
of an alleged murder suspect is unnecessary and 
unprofessional. It precludes readily available 
direct evidence that may, or may not, support the 
circumstantial evidence from investigative 
procedures by those that may, or may not, be 
proficient, candid, perfect, and dedicated 
professionals of unassailable integrity.

The destruction of notes taken during an extensive
unrecorded interview/interrogation, deprives the
defense of any means to refute, with direct evidence,
the content of the completed report, which is part
of prosecution evidence. 

There are questionable motives to destroy original 
notes that form the basis of an alleged murder 
investigation report.

The testimony of typical "snitches" is little more 
than hear-say testimony, of questionable source 
and value, likely to be colored by motive.

The use of a jailhouse snitch, carrying
a recording device, eliciting testimony from the
defendant, is a questionable practise leading to
questionable testimony-evidence. 

Circumstantial hear-say testimony, from anyone, is 
as likely to be false, as not.

Seeking and using negative hear-say testimony, 
about the defendant, primarily from those who view 
the defendant in a negative manner, corrupts the 
investigative process with obvious bias.

Unreliable circumstantial evidence, alone, is the 
basis of the prosecutor's case, and such evidence 
to be shown will not support a guilty verdict, 
beyond a reasonable doubt.



Prosecution:

I understood the prosecution's repetitive questions
and prompting, regarding "hypothetical" allegations,
circumstances, evidence, context, and theories,
concerning the defendant's alleged murder of his wife,
to mean the following:

This is a domestic violence case.

Thomas Richardson systematically undermined his
spouse's self-esteem.

The alleged crime was subsequent to spouse abuse.

The defendant's stress generated behavior falls
outside the range of "normal", while waiting to know
if his spouse would survive a serious health problem. 

There is lots of testimony, much of it nasty,
concerning the marriage problems of the defendant
and his wife.

Thomas Richardson chose murder as an alternative to
divorce.

The wife's alleged murder is, to a great degree, a
consequence of a failed marriage.

The motive for murder was an attempt to 
escape the potential costs and consequences of a 
divorce, and to gain from the wife's estate.

Bickering between the defendant and his wife is a 
likely precursor to the wife's alleged 
murder.

Thomas Richardson behaved in an "abnormal" manner, 
indicating that he was broken, in some fashion.

Circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct 
evidence.

Circumstantial evidence, without direct evidence, 
is sufficient to reach a guilty verdict.

Circumstantial hear-say evidence, from many 
people, equals likely guilt.

It is irrelevant to the case and trial that 
fundamental investigative documenting notes, of an 
open and active case, were destroyed before trial.

Beware the defense's legal theories concerning 
unanswered questions that have nothing to do with
the facts and circumstances required to reach a
guilty verdict.

Those "Red herrings" will be dangled by the defense
to misdirect the jury from the goal of the 
prosecution's evidence and arguments.

It is appropriate, in the 21st Century, to "solve" 
an alleged capital crime, in the "old fashioned 
way", with little more than circumstantial 
evidence.

It is appropriate to try the defendant, in the 
"old fashioned way", for an alleged capital crime, 
based upon little more than circumstantial 
evidence.

It is appropriate to ask a jury to reach a 
verdict, in the "old fashioned way", for an 
alleged capital crime, based upon little more than 
circumstantial evidence.

The public perception of the first 30 minutes of 
the World Trade Center tragedy of 09-11-01 showed 
the validity and strength of circumstantial 
evidence.

The circumstantial evidence to be shown, 
is, in its own context, similar to that of the
911 incident, and is all that is needed to
conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
defendant is guilty of murder.


It will be interesting to see how close my
perceptions of "hypothetical" circumstances,
evidence,and theories, are to that which will be
presented.

There was a significant degree of concern, expressed
by both sides, regarding perceived notions acquired
by the potential jurors, prior to the trial process.
I can only cry when I consider that I sat through a
jury selection process in which two advocates,
representing diametrically opposed views of the case,
spent 12 1/2 hours trying to convince me of the
relevance of certain allegations, facts, theories,
and events, prior to the defendant's trial.

The defendant is either a murderer, or he is not.
That being so, one advocate was representing a
confidence game, as a trial authority figure, before
the trial, with the sole purpose of convincing
potential jurors of that which is false, by
presenting, during voir dire, false representations
of circumstances, evidence, and theories.

What I witnessed did nothing to restore my
steadily deteriorating view of law enforcement and
adjudication.


P.S.

I was told by a valued acquaintance, who read a 
draft of this article, that I had tried Thomas
Richardson, already.

I responded that I had not tried him, but if 
my perception of events was essentially correct, 
the attorneys had a great practice trial using 
"hypothetical" illustrative allegations,
circumstances, evidence, context, and theories.