Jury Duty

dlb · March 21st, 2007, 04:02 PM

I spent the last two and a half days serving on the jury for the case of The State of North Carolina vs. Patricia Bradsher. Ms. Bradsher had been charged with one count of Larceny by an Employee and one count of Consipiracy to Commit Larceny by an Employee. These charges were the result of a burglary at Bradsher's place of employment, which was also her residence.

The establishment is a "gas house," owned by Quality Oil of North Carolina. This is a self-service gas station, where customers pay for their purchase at a drive-up window. While at the window, they may also purchase cigarettes. Attached to the business is an apartment, at which the manager lives. The manager receives 9% of the business's profits and is responsible for any shortages discovered during the monthly audits. This particular gas house employed three people other than Ms. Bradsher. Only two were present at the trial, a woman named Katrina Delagarza and a high school girl named Amanda Strader.

On the evening of Friday, May 26, Memorial Day weekend, the business was burlarized and approximately $19K in cash was stolen. Ms. Strader closed the business that night at 10:00, but when driving back by the location at approximately 10:30, she noticed Ms. Delagarza's car in the driveway to the residence. This was not necessarily a problem, as Ms. Delagarza was the assistant manager, and the manager, Bradsher, was out of town at the Charlotte Motor Speedway, attending the Memorial Day NASCAR race.

The state's case was built almost entirely on Delagarza's testimony. She claimed that she and Bradsher had executed a plan to fake the burglary. Delagarza's role was to return after Strader had left, turn off the security camera and remove the tape from the recorder. Then, upon arriving on Saturday morning to open the store, she was to report the burglary.

Testimony from the investigating officers was that Delagarza did report the burglary on Saturday morning, and as they asked her routine questions, they began to suspect her story. Further, there was no evidence of forced entry, except that a hasp-and-padlock had been pried off of a door leading from the business to the residence. However, the hasp had been pried off from the business side, meaning that entry from the outside was not forced.

Delagarza's initial statements were that she had returned to the business on Friday night, because Bradsher had asked her to stay there in her (Bradsher's) absence. She further claimed to have left shortly after 10:30, because a thunderstorm was coming and she is afraid of thunderstorms.

The police, convinced that this was an inside job, continued to pressure Delagarza. Finally, under interrogation by an SBI agent, she confessed to her role in the conspiracy on June 14, 2006. The story given in that statement changed only in some small ways from June 14 until the trial. The most important change regarded the time at which Bradsher paid her her cut. Initially, she said it was before she left work at 3:00 on Sunday afternoon. Later, and at the trial, she testified that she was paid a few minutes after her 3:00 shift change.

Investigating officers further testified that Delagarza had spent approximately $1800 - $2000 in the period from May 28 - June 14. Her purchases included going to the movies, buying clothes and toys for her niece and nephew, and buying clothes for herself.

The officers also claimed that Bradsher's story had some suspicious inconsistencies. Once the burglary was discovered, Bradsher was directed by her boss to leave the race and return to the business. Upon arriving, she insisted that the likely suspects were some acquaintances of her son's, who had been threatening the boy in a dispute over a girl. She further claimed that they had likely gained entry through the doggy-door at the back of her residence. When the investigating detective demonstrated that there was no forced entry into the business and that the hasp securing the door between the residence and the business had been forced from the business side, Bradsher noted that her extra set of keys to the business had been missing since Friday. The officers also testified that at a later date, Bradsher claimed that her keys had been missing for a few days.

Bradsher stayed with her immediate supervisor and a company vice president as they determined the extent of the loss on Saturday. The deposit from Thursday, which company policy required to be made by 5:00 p.m. on the following day, had not been made. From a total of about $9000 that was reported on the deposit slip, only about $800 remained. All of Friday's receipts had been removed from the safe, a total of about $10.5K. Bradsher spent Saturday night at her home and returned to the race on Sunday.

This was not the first time this business had been burglarized. In September of 2005, $4500 was removed from the safe. Bradsher reported this theft. On investigation, the security cameras caught Bradsher's son opening the safe, but never showed him with cash in his hand. Bradsher agreed to cover the loss completely; and was allowed to continue her employment on the condition that her son would no longer be permitted on the premises.

Before leaving for the race, Bradsher gave Delagarza the combination to the safe. She testified that this was necessary, in order for Delagarza to deposit Friday and Saturday's receipts (which must be deposited by 5:00 on the following day, when Bradsher would be out of town). According to testimony by the Quality Oil vice president, this was common practice among gas house managers when they were out of town.

Bradsher's immediate supervisor testified that his monthly audits of her store never showed any serious discrepancies. The vice president testified that Bradsher had been employed by the company since 1999, and he believed her to be an honest person.

The only evidence implicating Bradsher in either the burglary or the conspiracy was Delagarza's testimony. There was no evidence that Bradsher went on a spending spree after the burglary. The evidence showed that she was fired on June 16, had lived in her pop-up camper through the summer of 2006, and is now living with her mother.

Again, Delagarza's testimony was that Bradsher instructed her to turn off the security camera and press eject on the recorder. No security tape was entered into evidence. Delagarza also testified that Bradsher paid her $2000 for her role in the plot.

So, what do you think? Is Bradsher guilty or not guilty?

noetsi · March 21st, 2007, 04:12 PM

Guilty of a bad taste in entertainment...

Oh sorry...

Quote:

Bradsher's immediate supervisor testified that his monthly audits of her store never showed any serious discrepancies. The vice president testified that Bradsher had been employed by the company since 1999, and he believed her to be an honest person.

The only evidence implicating Bradsher in either the burglary or the conspiracy was Delagarza's testimony. There was no evidence that Bradsher went on a spending spree after the burglary. The evidence showed that she was fired on June 16, had lived in her pop-up camper through the summer of 2006, and is now living with her mother.

So we know that the person in question had a fairly long history of apparently honest behavior. The person who testified against her spent a lot of money, which I assume she normally did not have, and got pressured into giving some one up - I assume for lenient treatment. The statment by Bradsher dont seem all that inconsistant to me. I would not want to point out that I lost my keys either and her assumption of where they could have entered not knowing it was an inside job seem reasonable enough.

dlb · March 21st, 2007, 04:17 PM

Evidence at the trial showed that Delagarza had already been convicted of a crime in relation to this incident, but had not yet been sentenced.

Nimajneb · March 21st, 2007, 04:18 PM

If that's all there is to go on- not guilty

noetsi · March 21st, 2007, 04:25 PM

Yep not guilty.

Grandstander · March 21st, 2007, 04:32 PM

I do not see that the prosecution has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not be arguing that she did not do it, but would argue that the State has not proved it.

fellow59 · March 21st, 2007, 04:45 PM

Yeah, the testimony of a guilty party along with suspicious circumstances doesn't feel exactly like proof.

Nighthawk · March 21st, 2007, 05:08 PM

Sounds like no guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to me as well.

dlb · March 21st, 2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

I do not see that the prosecution has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not be arguing that she did not do it, but would argue that the State has not proved it.

Exactly. On our first ballot, we were six guilty, six not guilty. Then, I argued that the state had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bradsher was sloppy, careless, and a bad manager who deserved to be fired, but had not met even the minimal standard of proof that she was guilty of any crime.

The clincher for me was that there was no testimony or other evidence corroborating Delagarza's testimony. If the state could have proven that Bradsher's spending patterns changed after the crime, that would have helped their case considerably, if not made it. But they offered no evidence of that nature.

After all of the "guilty's" had given their reasons (she went back to the race; the conveniently missing keys; inconsistencies in Bradsher's testimony; etc.), I said, "all of your suspicions are valid. I share them. If I were a detective, I would investigate Bradsher more fully. However, it was not the state's job to give us a mystery to solve, even if the solution appears reasonable. It was their job to solve the mystery. They didn't do that."

When my strongest opponent cast her "not guilty" vote, she said, "I think Bradsher is guilty, but the state has failed us. They did not prove it."

Nocahoma · March 22nd, 2007, 09:09 AM

Delagarza's testimony, as a participant in the crime, MUST be corroborated by evidence and/or testimony. The Prosecution must have worded their questions very carefully to avoid having Delagarza's testimony not regraded entirely as hearsay.

Geez, what County was this, so I can steer clear of there?

Nocahoma · March 22nd, 2007, 09:13 AM

dlb,
Did Delagarza receive any leniency for her testimony?

Nighthawk · March 22nd, 2007, 10:36 AM

Gang-

I moved this over to the main BBQ as I thought it might be better served in that forum.

-Hawk

Sawman · March 22nd, 2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb

Exactly. On our first ballot, we were six guilty, six not guilty. Then, I argued that the state had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bradsher was sloppy, careless, and a bad manager who deserved to be fired, but had not met even the minimal standard of proof that she was guilty of any crime.

The bolded section is accurate, therefore Bradsher was not guilty. Regardless of whether someone "acts" guilty or not, it's still the prosecution's responsibility to satisfy the burden of proof. Not guilty.

dlb · March 22nd, 2007, 02:36 PM

The Assistant DA called me for feedback today. I told her what I've told you guys, but added, "after your closing argument, I wanted to believe you, but I just didn't have anything to hang a conviction on."

She said, "Yeah, this was a very hard case; so circumstantial."

I asked her if there was anything that she was not allowed to present that she thought might have swayed us. She said, "No, you pretty much got everything I had. The one thing I wondered about trying to get entered was that Bradsher is also up on charges for assault with a deadly weapon against Delagarza."

We agreed that that could have swayed the jury either way (wronged woman loses temper or co-conspirator attempts to pressure accomplice into silence?). She was philosophical about the loss though, saying, "the slam dunks don't go to trial; on those we get guilty pleas."

She's a good ADA. If she ever runs for the top job, I might vote for her (unless she's a Republican).

LongtimeBravesFan · March 22nd, 2007, 04:38 PM

Just an aside about Bradsher. she sounds like a lousy parent. Her son rips off her boss? Don't worry, I'll pay for it. We got robbed again? I'll bet those mean boys picking on my baby did it.

I wouldn't be suprised if he and the other woman were in cahoots.

March 21st, 2007, 04:02 PM	#1 (permalink)
dlb Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,511	Jury Duty I spent the last two and a half days serving on the jury for the case of The State of North Carolina vs. Patricia Bradsher. Ms. Bradsher had been charged with one count of Larceny by an Employee and one count of Consipiracy to Commit Larceny by an Employee. These charges were the result of a burglary at Bradsher's place of employment, which was also her residence. The establishment is a "gas house," owned by Quality Oil of North Carolina. This is a self-service gas station, where customers pay for their purchase at a drive-up window. While at the window, they may also purchase cigarettes. Attached to the business is an apartment, at which the manager lives. The manager receives 9% of the business's profits and is responsible for any shortages discovered during the monthly audits. This particular gas house employed three people other than Ms. Bradsher. Only two were present at the trial, a woman named Katrina Delagarza and a high school girl named Amanda Strader. On the evening of Friday, May 26, Memorial Day weekend, the business was burlarized and approximately $19K in cash was stolen. Ms. Strader closed the business that night at 10:00, but when driving back by the location at approximately 10:30, she noticed Ms. Delagarza's car in the driveway to the residence. This was not necessarily a problem, as Ms. Delagarza was the assistant manager, and the manager, Bradsher, was out of town at the Charlotte Motor Speedway, attending the Memorial Day NASCAR race. The state's case was built almost entirely on Delagarza's testimony. She claimed that she and Bradsher had executed a plan to fake the burglary. Delagarza's role was to return after Strader had left, turn off the security camera and remove the tape from the recorder. Then, upon arriving on Saturday morning to open the store, she was to report the burglary. Testimony from the investigating officers was that Delagarza did report the burglary on Saturday morning, and as they asked her routine questions, they began to suspect her story. Further, there was no evidence of forced entry, except that a hasp-and-padlock had been pried off of a door leading from the business to the residence. However, the hasp had been pried off from the business side, meaning that entry from the outside was not forced. Delagarza's initial statements were that she had returned to the business on Friday night, because Bradsher had asked her to stay there in her (Bradsher's) absence. She further claimed to have left shortly after 10:30, because a thunderstorm was coming and she is afraid of thunderstorms. The police, convinced that this was an inside job, continued to pressure Delagarza. Finally, under interrogation by an SBI agent, she confessed to her role in the conspiracy on June 14, 2006. The story given in that statement changed only in some small ways from June 14 until the trial. The most important change regarded the time at which Bradsher paid her her cut. Initially, she said it was before she left work at 3:00 on Sunday afternoon. Later, and at the trial, she testified that she was paid a few minutes after her 3:00 shift change. Investigating officers further testified that Delagarza had spent approximately $1800 - $2000 in the period from May 28 - June 14. Her purchases included going to the movies, buying clothes and toys for her niece and nephew, and buying clothes for herself. The officers also claimed that Bradsher's story had some suspicious inconsistencies. Once the burglary was discovered, Bradsher was directed by her boss to leave the race and return to the business. Upon arriving, she insisted that the likely suspects were some acquaintances of her son's, who had been threatening the boy in a dispute over a girl. She further claimed that they had likely gained entry through the doggy-door at the back of her residence. When the investigating detective demonstrated that there was no forced entry into the business and that the hasp securing the door between the residence and the business had been forced from the business side, Bradsher noted that her extra set of keys to the business had been missing since Friday. The officers also testified that at a later date, Bradsher claimed that her keys had been missing for a few days. Bradsher stayed with her immediate supervisor and a company vice president as they determined the extent of the loss on Saturday. The deposit from Thursday, which company policy required to be made by 5:00 p.m. on the following day, had not been made. From a total of about $9000 that was reported on the deposit slip, only about $800 remained. All of Friday's receipts had been removed from the safe, a total of about $10.5K. Bradsher spent Saturday night at her home and returned to the race on Sunday. This was not the first time this business had been burglarized. In September of 2005, $4500 was removed from the safe. Bradsher reported this theft. On investigation, the security cameras caught Bradsher's son opening the safe, but never showed him with cash in his hand. Bradsher agreed to cover the loss completely; and was allowed to continue her employment on the condition that her son would no longer be permitted on the premises. Before leaving for the race, Bradsher gave Delagarza the combination to the safe. She testified that this was necessary, in order for Delagarza to deposit Friday and Saturday's receipts (which must be deposited by 5:00 on the following day, when Bradsher would be out of town). According to testimony by the Quality Oil vice president, this was common practice among gas house managers when they were out of town. Bradsher's immediate supervisor testified that his monthly audits of her store never showed any serious discrepancies. The vice president testified that Bradsher had been employed by the company since 1999, and he believed her to be an honest person. The only evidence implicating Bradsher in either the burglary or the conspiracy was Delagarza's testimony. There was no evidence that Bradsher went on a spending spree after the burglary. The evidence showed that she was fired on June 16, had lived in her pop-up camper through the summer of 2006, and is now living with her mother. Again, Delagarza's testimony was that Bradsher instructed her to turn off the security camera and press eject on the recorder. No security tape was entered into evidence. Delagarza also testified that Bradsher paid her $2000 for her role in the plot. So, what do you think? Is Bradsher guilty or not guilty?

March 21st, 2007, 05:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
Nighthawk Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 2,716	Sounds like no guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to me as well. __________________ "Whenever the word 'fair' features so prominently in legislation, the odds are that it is economically illiterate" -Rich Lowery What am I doing with your tax money? Sustaining the realm according to caprice.

March 22nd, 2007, 10:36 AM	#12 (permalink)
Nighthawk Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 2,716	Gang- I moved this over to the main BBQ as I thought it might be better served in that forum. -Hawk __________________ "Whenever the word 'fair' features so prominently in legislation, the odds are that it is economically illiterate" -Rich Lowery What am I doing with your tax money? Sustaining the realm according to caprice.

March 21st, 2007, 04:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
dlb Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,511	Evidence at the trial showed that Delagarza had already been convicted of a crime in relation to this incident, but had not yet been sentenced.

March 21st, 2007, 04:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
Nimajneb Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 760	If that's all there is to go on- not guilty

March 21st, 2007, 04:25 PM	#5 (permalink)
noetsi Legend Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 17,414	Yep not guilty.

March 21st, 2007, 04:32 PM	#6 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,616	I do not see that the prosecution has established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not be arguing that she did not do it, but would argue that the State has not proved it.

March 21st, 2007, 04:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
fellow59 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,135	Yeah, the testimony of a guilty party along with suspicious circumstances doesn't feel exactly like proof.

March 22nd, 2007, 09:09 AM	#10 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	Delagarza's testimony, as a participant in the crime, MUST be corroborated by evidence and/or testimony. The Prosecution must have worded their questions very carefully to avoid having Delagarza's testimony not regraded entirely as hearsay. Geez, what County was this, so I can steer clear of there?

March 22nd, 2007, 09:13 AM	#11 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	dlb, Did Delagarza receive any leniency for her testimony?

March 22nd, 2007, 02:36 PM	#14 (permalink)
dlb Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,511	The Assistant DA called me for feedback today. I told her what I've told you guys, but added, "after your closing argument, I wanted to believe you, but I just didn't have anything to hang a conviction on." She said, "Yeah, this was a very hard case; so circumstantial." I asked her if there was anything that she was not allowed to present that she thought might have swayed us. She said, "No, you pretty much got everything I had. The one thing I wondered about trying to get entered was that Bradsher is also up on charges for assault with a deadly weapon against Delagarza." We agreed that that could have swayed the jury either way (wronged woman loses temper or co-conspirator attempts to pressure accomplice into silence?). She was philosophical about the loss though, saying, "the slam dunks don't go to trial; on those we get guilty pleas." She's a good ADA. If she ever runs for the top job, I might vote for her (unless she's a Republican).

March 22nd, 2007, 04:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
LongtimeBravesFan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,660	Just an aside about Bradsher. she sounds like a lousy parent. Her son rips off her boss? Don't worry, I'll pay for it. We got robbed again? I'll bet those mean boys picking on my baby did it. I wouldn't be suprised if he and the other woman were in cahoots.