Gullixson: A verdict that just raises more questions

So how is it that a jury can be deadlocked 11-1 on a charge of "peeking" for several days (including a weekend) and then take only 15 minutes to conclude that the same defendant was not guilty of "attempted peeking"?

And how is it that someone can approach a window in the middle of the night, look at the window and even break a screen covering the window, but not have looked through the window?

These are just some of the questions that have us scratching our heads in the aftermath of Supervisor Efren Carrillo's bizarre trial last week.

The fact is we may never know the answers. Most members of the jury, so far, aren't talking, and they don't have to.

I know serving on a jury isn't easy. I've been there, and I have great respect for anyone who does it, particularly given the legions today who will lie, cheat and defy the law — by not showing up when summoned — to get out of jury duty. Being impaneled and asked to reach a unanimous verdict is that much more difficult.

That said, it's my opinion this was probably the worst outcome of this high-profile trial — for the county, the judicial system and, possibly, for Carrillo himself.

Why? Because one of the county's top elected officials ended up walking away legally unscathed from an incident in which a woman was terrorized, awoken in the middle of the night by her screen being torn by a man lurking outside — and he did the tearing and the lurking. To make matters worse, he did it clad in nothing but boxer shorts and socks.

By his own admission in court, he said he was hoping for sex — from a woman he barely knew — just an hour after being dropped off by his girlfriend.

As my son would say, that's messed up.

But apparently it isn't illegal. Or at least it doesn't rise to the level of attempted peeking.

comments powered by Disqus
© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View