Forum: Hear what’s said and how, whether candidate or defendant

Published 1:30 am Saturday, August 31, 2024

By Sid Roberts / Herald Forum

Several years ago, I got that unplanned letter in the mail from Snohomish County; I was summoned for jury duty.

I had been summoned before and usually the actual commitment for jury duty service has been low. In the past when I have been called to serve, I was usually released from the commitment sometime during or after the first day. However, this summons was different.

I was chosen to serve as a juror in a recommitment trial for a sex offender.

Once I was picked for the actual jury, we were told the trial would likely last a week and not to expect dismissal of the case. The state prosecutors were going to argue that even though the defendant had served his actual time for crimes committed, he was not well. They believed if the defendant were to be released, he was likely to reoffend.

At trial, I listened intently to the evidence the first several days and tried to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. For much of a week we observed arguments and counter arguments by the attorneys.

The actual evidence, though horrific, seemed a bit conflicting. Plus, he had already served his time for the previous conviction. So, I listened soberly and looked for any cues that would help me decide.

Unfortunately, during trial we were tasked with listening to disturbing testimony and see exhibits on a slide projector regarding the defendant’s alleged crimes. I confess, a few times, I couldn’t look at the exhibits and simply stared at the floor. With that said, I tried to keep an open mind. This was a big task. If sentenced he would go back to the sex offender treatment center at McNeil Island. If not, back on the street and possibly reoffend. His victims had all been children.

However, something happened around the third or fourth day that was a significant development. The state prosecutors put the defendant on the stand, and the jury had the opportunity to hear his story, in his own words. As the accused begin to chat enthusiastically about the rambling narrative of his life, the public defender attorneys hung their heads and scribbled in their notes. They obviously weren’t happy their client was on the stand without a filter.

Once he began to discuss his life story, in an unfiltered narrative and in his natural demeanor, it became very clear that he was a troubled soul and not mentally well.

Listening to him ramble about the injustice of his life was exhausting. His manner of speech and his body language told a story that legal argument could never tell. He was a mess, and the jury ultimately, unanimously, voted to send him back to McNeil Island.

As we approach election season, including the national elections, may I submit to you that the quality and substance of a candidate’s actual speech should tell you most of what you need to know about them and their character. What they say and how they say it is the mirror of their soul.

You have lived life, are perceptive and should be able to size up their character based on the tenor and quality of what they say and how they say it. Character still matters.

How a candidate speaks, acts and treats others, in public speech and demeanor is not only important but often is only a tip of the iceberg. When allowed to speak unfiltered, the mouth will mirror what is in the heart.

“For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of”: Matthew 12:34.

I believe you can make a good choice in this historic election based entirely on the content and nuance of a candidates current and historical speech. Listen with your heart and with discernment and I think the choice will be crystal clear. It is your job to discern and then vote. The future of our country depends on it.

Sid Roberts is Mayor of Stanwood.