Wow this is really long! I do sincerely apologize for this great wall of text but if you would take a few minutes and read what I have to say, you will NOT be disappointed!
The last two days of my life was an interesting yet frustrating two days. I was chosen to sit on the jury for the State vs. Ferdinand Trial. I have now had time to reflect upon this experience. I was the only person of the jury who continually returned to the written law. I found there was no physical or witness evidence to support the Prosecutor’s claim that this man intended to bring a firearm onto an aircraft.
The law states to commit a crime there must be intent to commit a crime along with the act of committing that crime. The two facts of intent and action are NOT to be separated as so stated in legal writing for all of the jury to read. I believed with all my mind, soul and body that this man did not intent on bringing that firearm to the airport that day! There was no evidence proven without a reasonable doubt (in my mind) that he had any intention to do so. His actions spoke to me that he did not act with intention either. I continued to hold my ground and hours later came to the conclusion that I was alone in my thought process, except one other person whom I will get to later.* I listened diligently to all other jury members, their story’s, analogies, and still could not find beyond any reasonable doubt that this man would intentionally bring a weapon to the airport, much less onto an air craft.
*Once the evening hours hit and we were getting hungry, one of the members decided that they would change their vote in an effort to get us out of there sooner and tried to convince me that it would be better to vote guilty. Then this person would start to attempt to rationalize reasons why this person might actually be guilty. I became increasingly frustrated, and trying desperately to find some reason that this man might be guilty. I went back to the paperwork where the law was written. I read it aloud several times. I asked people to look at it, and read it! I was still unable to find any intention in the Commissioners actions that would clarify that he did in fact knowingly bring a gun to the airport and didn’t just simply or innocently forget that it was in a pocket that he doesn’t normally store it in.
The first article that I read when I got home mentions the “Smirk” comment by TSA Official Nancy Love, who said that when the Commissioner was at the X-ray machine he appeared to have a “Smirk” on his face. However, after some objections regarding the “Smirk” comment from the Defense, it was stricken from the record. Many jurors kept going back to this point. That body language was a key factor that could hold some weight. So to ride out the thoughts, I asked, “How are the TSA agents qualified enough to assess someone’s innocents by body language?” Most of the jurors said that they were professionally trained to know these things. It was not a part of the evidence and it had been stricken from the record, so it was a mute point anyway! But the issue continued on, and finally everyone moved on to other points. I voiced concern that people who are not specifically trained in body language (which we have no idea what the TSA agents training includes as it was not part of the evidence) that they did not have any basis to make the claim that his body language had any effect on this case.
Facts: What I knew from the information presented to the jury.
These are some of the key points, not all information is included. I am not leaving anything out on purpose.
1. The Commissioner acted in a manor and was compliant to all TSA regulations.
2. The Commissioner previously removed un-desirable items from his luggage the night before.
3. The Commissioner did only have 30 mins – 1 hour of sleep that night before leaving to the airport to board for Washington D.C.
4. The Commissioner was fully aware that guns were not allowed in airports and not allowed in Washington D.C. He has made this trip before for the same convention he was about to attend.
5. The Commissioner was calm and not showing signs of anxiety as he approached the security check points.
6. The Commissioner was calm when he was being questioned.
7. The Commissioner answered all the questions asked to him in a calm and cooperative manor.
8. One of the officers did have a friendly and light conversation with the Commissioner stating that he was glad to meet the Commissioner. Although he stated that he’d wished it was under better circumstances.
9. The Commissioner was not arrested and not found to be a threat by Boise Police Officers, and was allowed to board the plane for his flight on time.
10. The Commissioner was cited for a misdemeanor but left it to the courts to decide his innocents or guilt.
11. The Commissioner showed ID to the officers when asked. (ID included his concealed weapons permit)
12. The Commissioner was an Eagle Scout. (Irrelevant I know….)
13. The Commissioner didn’t take a concealed guns permit class. As when he received the gun permit he was not required to do so. All elected officials are given this privilege in Idaho. Although during that time when he received it, no class was available either.
14. A TSA agent and screener said that he believed that he would have had a 100% identification of a firearm had it passed through his x-ray machine. So in other words, the firearm would have never entered the secure area, much less the aircraft itself.
15. When he was detained he could not think of any reason why he would be detained. It was only until the officer asked him if he could possibly have a “Firearm” that the Commissioner said… “Oh No… Are you kidding me?”
Facts: What I know now!
1. This case was not a criminal case.
2. This case was the civil trial brought forth by the City of Boise against the Commissioner. (Our tax dollars) They didn’t tell us that. We had no idea why the jury’s numbered in six and not twelve.
3. The Mayor of Boise city is an advocate against gun rights.
4. The Commissioner has paid restitution (I’m unsure if it was voluntary or forced) of a $1,500 fine.
5. Concealed weapons permit looks just like a driver’s license identification. So it “was” completely appropriate for him to give this as identification prior to finding out that the firearm was the reason for his detention. It also has the same ID number as your drivers licence number. It is a valid form of identification.
My Outrage!
I’m pretty livid about this case. For several reasons, I kept asking myself “Why are we even here?” “What did this man do criminally?” “When are they going to show some solid evidence that he is guilty?” I could not find any fault other than the man simply was negligent in his actions while packing his bag for his flight. We as jurors were not there to decide if he was negligent. We were there to decide if he “knew” or “Knowingly” attempted to bring a firearm aboard a public aircraft! I am however glad that at least this hung jury has brought forth a chance that this case will not re-appear. However after hearing comments about our Boise Mayor and his (axe to grind) with gun rights, I feel it may not be the end of torture for this innocent man!
Another point that I kept on leaning towards this question; I asked myself and the other jurors, “Why would anyone knowingly bring a firearm into an airport and bring it directly to federal agents with metal detecting screening capabilities?” It just made no sense to me at all. There was no logic or reason to support why he would do such a thing. You could speculate a lot of things but we had no evidence to support him doing such an act of total insanity.
By the end of the deliberation session, I finally gave up. The points had been hashed and re-hashed with no gain. When I would state the written law, jurors would continue to go back to hearsay to support their view. I decided to call the bailiff and state that I had, had enough and to notify the Judge.
Conclusions: I believe that this case has a very political and profound impact on our America way of life. I was not about to send out a guilty verdict without reasonable cause. I had plenty of reasonable doubt as I know I am a reasonable person enough to conclude that the evidence just wasn’t there. No witness’s came forward and said that the Commissioner had preplanned to take the gun on the plane, nor was there any solid evidence such as written, audio, or otherwise. I believe that the jurors were in total disagreement. However, they were all in agreement that the Commissioner did not intend to bring the firearm onto the plane that day. I believe that the vote at the end was 5 against the commissioner vs. one for the commissioner (me) by the end of the deliberation. I believe that it was actually 4 vs. 2 but that juror changed their mind when it became just too frustrating to continue, and not because they fully believe that he was guilty.
I believe that the Prosecutor’s entire case was built on hoping that the jury wouldn’t believe that he could “forget” there was a firearm in his backpack.
My heart sincerely goes out to David Ferdinand, his family, friends, continuants, and associates. I wanted to tell him… God Bless you and do not give up!
What kind of preemption law is there in Idaho? Seems to me, whether he had intent or not, federal firearms laws were being broken.
Most states have merged the Criminal and Civil procedures aspect to the point that it’s not always obvious which is which.
And I think it is a dishonest thing to do - criminal law deals with injury and intent, while civil law deals with contracts and agreements and rights.
“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions. The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.” 29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.
In fact if you are charged with a crime, there must be a corpus, and they must have it, or they don’t have standing. That’s what Habeas Corpus is really about. Show me evidence of a body of a crime - some injury to a person or property, and show me evidence of criminal intent - an accident is not sufficient - or let me go.
Thank you for standing up for “the rule of Law” instead of the vagaries of Man. Too few pay attention to the real reasons we have a written Constitution and Laws — to preclude actions such as those taken by your Mayor and DA for political points.
Very nicely written!
One thing many of these anti-gunners don’t understand is that those of us that have firearms or have grown-up around firearms do not have the recoil reflex of the Lefties. It is simply a tool. And as such it really doesn’t illicit the emotion shown by those in authority.
Nicely done. Bravo!
< *applauds*>
1) Should the Commissioner known he had a gun? Yes, and all the juror's including my wife agreed on this point.
2) Did the Commissioner know at that time he had a gun? No, and again all the juror's including my wife agreed on this point.
The intended action should have been decided right then and there as not guilty. However other jurors kept trying to justify in their minds how to come back with a guilty verdict.
On juror (and this blows my mind) said something to the effect of "well he was cited for it so he must be guilty". Guess innocent until proven guilty didn't apply.
It is sad that a jurist would let the rumbling in his stomach determine the innocence or guilt of a person. Good for you for holding out. You read the law and interpreted it correctly.