SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE LAW REACTION PAPER: STATE V. REED

 
In State v. Reed, Mr. Reed was charged with unlawful possession of a handgun. Here is a summary of the case facts, the gist of the arguments from the attorneys, and the instructions on the law from the judge.

Facts from trial
This case came about because Leroy Reed purchased a handgun. He testified that he did so in order to meet what he believed to be the “requirements” for being a private investigator. After reading an ad in a magazine about the possibility of receiving training in private investigation, Mr. Reed purchased both a gun and a badge. Both sides concede that Leroy Reed is a convicted felon. During testimony, Leroy Reed stated that at the time he purchased a handgun, he was seeing a parole officer as a result of his prior conviction. Mr. Reed enjoyed spending time at the local courthouse. On one such day, a sheriff asked him for identification. As I.D., he produced the bill of sale for the gun. The sheriff requested that Mr. Reed go home, retrieve the gun, and bring it back to him at the courthouse. Mr. Reed complied and was arrested. A witness for the defense testified that Leroy Reed is not retarded but his intelligence is below average.

Arguments from attorneys (not shown fully on tape, but the following is the gist)

Prosecutor: You took an oath to uphold the law. You cannot make exceptions to the law based on sympathy. The defendant is guilty of possessing a firearm, and all elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice demands consistency in application of the law.

Defense: This case should never have been brought against the defendant. Mr. Reed may meet the technical definitions of the law, but you can decide to acquit the defendant if you think that convicting him does not serve the interests of justice.

Instructions on the Law
It is unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. A person is guilty of this offense if at the time of possessing a firearm, that person (a) was a convicted felon; (b) was in possession of a firearm; and (c) knew he was in possession of a firearm.

The following instructions were not on tape, but it is typical of what is told to juries before they leave to deliberate:

“It is your duty to follow the law whether you agree with it or not. It is also your duty to determine the facts. You must determine the facts only from the evidence produced in court. You should not speculate or guess about any fact. You must not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice. You must take account of all my instructions on the law. Decide the case by applying the law in these instructions to the facts. In deciding the facts of this case, consider all of the evidence in light of reason, common sense, and experience. What the lawyers said during arguments is not evidence, but it may help you to understand the law and the evidence. The defendant is guilty of the offense if you find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was a convicted felon, was in possession of a firearm, and knew he was in possession.”

Paper Assignment

Now that you have seen the case and reviewed the facts, answer these three questions: What verdict did you personally favor? Why? In answering these, try to imagine that you are an actual juror on this case who has the responsibility of making this decision. Which pieces of evidence or which arguments were most persuasive to you? What are some problems with your position and what would other jurors probably say to you if they took the opposite side? What would you want to say in response to your opponents’ criticisms? Finally, importantly, what does your position say about the proper role of the jury in the United States? (In short, what are the pro’s and con’s of each verdict choice in this case and its implications for the jury?).