The ask

 

To Judge McJimpsey and the South Carolina Supreme Court: overturn the shoplifting conviction of a 17-year-old girl. She was convicted under "hand of one, hand of all" for a theft at Walmart on Monday, Feb 13, 2012 — a theft she did not take part in. I know, because I was on the jury.

 

What she actually did

 

I have gone over her actions again and again since the trial — in what I call my Thursday night Dream Casting — and this is what she did:

 

1. She did what any innocent, shocked, startled person would do: she panicked. Her erratic movements were the same pattern a mouse makes in a maze when it doesn't know what to do.
2. She fled the group, but kept looking back and returning to the group.

Why she was not a "lookout"

 

1. We the jury could not see her face or view her body language.
2. In any basic threatening (potentially threatening) situation, a "lookout" would not keep a large bag on her shoulder, restricting her movement and speed.
3. That bag was never used to load more stolen items.
4. Several minutes passed during the commission of this crime.

The law was misrepresented to us

 

Under the hand of one, hand of all, the officer would have had to:

 

1. Prove conspiracy — that the "lookout" was reasonably going to benefit from the theft, materially or momentarily. That was not displayed in the law, or even attempted verbally. That is police misconduct: misrepresenting the law that we the jury were never allowed to see.
2. By the instruction of the law the officer implied, he would also have had to arrest the other passersby who stopped within a few feet of the 3 female robbers, in clear view of the stuffing of bras.
3. We were instructed to apply the law, but not provided a copy of it. There are 50 different shoplifting laws in each state.

The video proves nothing against her

 

A timestamp was not on the 3 video recordings. Several minutes passed during the commission of the crime by the other 3 women. It is not reasonable to assume a shocked young girl is going to (a) even attempt to prevent her peer group, instantly, from stealing, or (b) flee the store, Walmart, when she was driven there by them.

 

The officer "sees these all the time" — every person he arrests is automatically guilty. We the jury were made to punish a person who was protecting herself as best she could in a threatening situation. The wrongfully convicted girl did not make any attempt to facilitate this crime.

 

This was a brave young woman, and I, along with the system, failed to protect her. The arresting officer needs to be retrained.

 

How to give the next defendant a fair trial

 

1. Have the suspect stand closer to the jury than the officer.
2. Provide (a) internet access and (b) a paper copy of all laws under consideration in the jury room.
3. A timer.

Ineffective assistance of counsel

 

The accused, and we the jury, had no counsel. For the typical criminal defendant who has no access to funds to pay for a private criminal defense attorney, the only source of representation is a public defender or a court-appointed attorney. While there are many highly experienced, quality court-appointed lawyers, there are also some who are inexperienced, underpaid, and overworked by the sheer number of criminal defense clients assigned to them. As a result, there are cases in which a criminal defendant receives ineffective or inadequate legal representation. While some such cases are overturned on appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, a far greater number are upheld for a variety of reasons, even where the attorney's behavior might appear inadequate, at best.

 

Police and process misconduct

 

The officer misrepresented the 2 laws we the jury were to apply.

 

Sign and share if you believe a juror who watched this happen.

 

Help it spread — contact / share with

 

(Published contact information only.)

 

• South Carolina Supreme Court — Clerk of Court (Patricia A. Howard): (803) 734-1080 · filings email supctfilings@sccourts.org · Supreme Court Building, 1231 Gervais Street, Columbia, SC 29201 — the decision maker's own office; send the petition link and ask that it be seen.
• ACLU of South Carolina: legal intake intake@aclusc.org · voicemail (843) 720-1423 · aclusc.org · P.O. Box 1668, Columbia, SC 29202
• Spartanburg Herald-Journal / GoUpstate: newsroom via goupstate.com (news tips and contact through the site and help.goupstate.com) — a Spartanburg juror asking the state Supreme Court to overturn a conviction is a local story.
• WSPA 7News and WYFF News 4: news tips through their websites' contact/tips pages — Upstate TV coverage reaches the court's own community.
• South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center and the SC Bar's lawyer referral / pro bono programs: share through their published contact pages — this petition asks for a lawyer's eyes on a conviction a juror says was wrong.