Juror 8 Speaks!

[RJDiogenes]

Now it can be told! With the end of the trial, the jury is no longer enjoined from discussing the case, so I am now free to reveal everything. Well, almost everything. The judge did caution us to be mindful of confidentiality, so I may not tell everything. But much of it is actually a matter of public record anyway.

So here is the nature of the suit: A kindly old man was asking the DA’s office for the return of some property that he claims was his. The property was seized during the execution of a search warrant, but the warrant had nothing to do with his property.

Seems simple enough....

But wait. First complication: The search warrant was for an apartment in Dorchester where stolen pharmaceutical drugs were being kept. The property in question was found in a padlocked walk-in closet along with a bunch of stolen property-- including the original Mass Bay Charter, issued by King William in the 1600s, which had recently been nabbed from the State House.

Second complication: The plaintiff who wanted his property returned was Myles Connor. You may not recognize his name right away, but you’ve heard of him because he’s been in the news many times. He’s a notorious thief with a career stretching back to the 60s. He once stole a Rembrandt and ransomed it back to authorities. He masterminded the still-unsolved Gardner Museum robbery in 1990 (although somebody else pulled it off, because he was in prison for another crime at the time). As one of the lawyers for the county said, he literally wrote the book on theft: The Art of the Heist. He testified to us that just does it for the rush.

The property in question was a bunch of antique guns, such as flintlocks and muskets, along with some antique oriental rugs. He and his grandfather were collectors of antique weapons and other things, mostly Japanese swords and old guns. The grandfather had a huge collection which passed on to Myles upon the man’s death, and Myles had quite a collection of his own, having started as a teenager. Witnesses testified that the family house was “full to the brim” with these antiques, some of them in museum-quality display cases, some of them just stacked in bedrooms and upstairs rooms. Myles would buy items at shows and flea markets in the United States and through blind auctions from Sotheby’s and other places.

How did Myles afford to buy all these antiques? Because he was the President of Rock’n’Roll, of course. Back in the 60s, he was a successful local musician, fronting a band called Myles and the Wild Ones. His long-time promoter (still active at 72, having just worked on last week’s Beyonce concert in Boston), testified to all the well-paying gigs he had, at venues from the Cape to upstate New York to ski country in Vermont. He was in the process of cutting an album, which fell through because of his seeming inability to stop committing art thefts (and other crimes-- it wasn’t all Alexander Mundy stuff). If not for this penchant for crossing swords with the law, he may have become a big name in Rock.

But the story behind this lawsuit begins in 1984, when Myles’ mother died. At that time, the family house in Milton was sold, so Myles had to find another place to store his collection. So he and some friends rented a big truck and brought most of the stuff down to his sister’s house, which I think was in Hanover. Not all of it, though. About eighteen of the guns and some Oriental rugs were brought by Myles’ girlfriend to Dorchester to the apartment of the wife of a guy that Myles had served jail time with and stashed in a walk-in closet that was locked with a padlock that only Myles’ girlfriend had a key to. The reason given for this was that there was no more room at his sister’s house.

Then, in 1985, police were on the trail of some pharmaceuticals that had been stolen from various hospitals and clinics in New England and obtained a search warrant for this apartment. They entered, searched, and found the drugs, along with some (modern) guns and other stuff. They also found the suspiciously padlocked door and, in the absence of a key, broke into it and seized the antiques. And the Mass Bay Charter.

Over the course of the next few months, firearms experts who worked with law enforcement located the owners of some of the antique guns, these owners being the Higgins Museum and the Edaville Railroad Museum. But most of the guns remained in storage in the custody of the district attorney.

Seventeen years later, after serving eleven years in a Federal prison and suffering a series of heart attacks that compromised his memory, Myles asked a lawyer friend to help him get custody of the guns and the rugs. The lawyer friend corresponded back and forth with the DA’s office for six years and was ultimately told that, unless they could provide proof of ownership or a court order, they were not getting the items (especially since some of the items that Myles was claiming had already been returned to museums that had proven their claim to the satisfaction of the DA). That was in 2008. In 2014, Myles’ current lawyer finally filed the civil suit that we heard beginning last week. The other thing that happened in 2014, just prior to the filing of the suit, was the death of a prominent antique gun dealer that Myles did a lot of business with over the years, and who was the only person who allegedly had personal knowledge of Myles’ purchases.

So that brings us up to the trial. The witnesses for the plaintiff included Myles himself, his old girlfriend who was the one who transported the items to Dorchester (and also accompanied Myles on his antiquing expeditions over the years), Myles’ old promoter from his Rock’n’Roll days, still a good friend, and Myles’ former lawyer, also a good friend. Myles has a lot of friends. He’s a likeable guy. The witnesses called by the defense included a couple of retired law enforcement officers who were involved in the execution of the search warrant and the search for the rightful owners of the found property back in the 80s. The testimony for the plaintiff included a lot of personal reminiscences, much of it vague, and the testimony for the defense included a lot of official documents. It was all very interesting and entertaining. I thought for sure that I would be fighting to keep my eyes opening, but it was completely riveting from start to finish, even when the judge and lawyers were consulting at the sidebar-- you couldn’t hear what they were saying, but you could see their faces and their body language.

Ultimately, the charge to us, the jury, was to decide on the relevance of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. In a criminal case, one must be sure of the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case the bar is a lot lower-- one only has to be convinced that a preponderance of evidence is in their favor. In other words, in the criminal case you must be 99% certain, but in the civil case, you only must be 51% certain. Throughout the days of the testimony, the judge would ask and tell us three things at the beginning and end of every session: That we must not talk to anybody about the case, that we must not do any research on our own, and that we must remain open minded. She also gave us instructions on what constitutes evidence, not to be prejudiced by events in the court, such as whether an objection was sustained or overruled, and other points of law and procedure. She also told us that, should our inferences or interpretations differ from hers or the lawyers or fellow jurors, we should always go with our own impressions, because the purpose of being a juror is to bring your own life experience and individual judgment to bear. But without prejudice or sympathy or disdain for anybody involved. Based on the conversations that we had in the jury room, which took longer than I anticipated, I think everybody took her advice seriously.

So, in the end, after all the testimony and presentations and legal arguments, and the very persuasive arguments by the lawyers on both sides, it came down to that one stipulation: Was there a preponderance of evidence in the plaintiff’s favor? Unfortunately, what the majority agreed (and it had to be at least twelve out of the fourteen jurors to be a verdict) was that there was pretty much no evidence at all, so we did not find in his favor. The jury was given a document where we had to go through a list of each disputed item and vote on each separately. There was also a question about whether the plaintiff had unjustifiably delayed the suit and if doing so had harmed the defense. We voted that the delay was unjustified, but it had not harmed the defense. They had prevailed solidly, after all.

Here’s what I think happened: When the family house had to be sold, Myles sent all of his legitimate belongings to his sister’s house. Then, probably in order to protect his sister from any involvement, he sent his stolen items or items he had received as stolen property, to the hidden stash in Dorchester.

At the end of it all, I felt kind of bad. Myles definitely falls into the category of charming rogue, like Han Solo or Alexander Mundy, and one can easily see how he got away with so much in his life. He may have legitimately owned those items or he may have felt entitled to them because he stole them fair and square, or he may, as one of the other lawyers said, just been doing all this as one last heist at the end of his life. I’ll never be sure, but the first thing I did when I got home yesterday was go to Amazon and buy his book. I’m pretty sure a few of the other jurors did, too.

[scottydog]

Wow. What a story. It's almost as if you made it all up. Yet I suspect what you said is all true. Really fascinating.

So Myles was really counting on the low-bar (51%) of the civil court case being in his favor, as he had no solid evidence, only various testimonies. Quite a gamble, as I suspect he had to absorb all the legal fees in his losing effort.

You call him a charming rogue, like Han Solo. Does that mean you think he'd rise to the status of hero if thrown into the same circumstances as Han Solo?

[Lupine]

Fascinating! I agree with your ruling though as it didn't seem like he had much of a case. The question I have is: if he could afford all these items and owned them lawfully why didn't he just rent a self-storage unit?

[RJDiogenes]

Wow. What a story. It's almost as if you made it all up. Yet I suspect what you said is all true. Really fascinating.

I didn't make it up, but you can be sure I'll use it all in a story someday.

So Myles was really counting on the low-bar (51%) of the civil court case being in his favor, as he had no solid evidence, only various testimonies. Quite a gamble, as I suspect he had to absorb all the legal fees in his losing effort.

I think they were counting on the low bar and the verisimilitude of hearsay testimony. But, oddly enough, I think they were counting a lot on testimony of his criminal history. Two reasons why. One, they were hoping that being open about his criminal past would resonate as honesty. Two, they were hoping that the fact he had always confessed to crimes in the past would convince jurors that he was telling the truth now.

You call him a charming rogue, like Han Solo. Does that mean you think he'd rise to the status of hero if thrown into the same circumstances as Han Solo?

A good question. I don't really know, although I do strongly suspect that his decision to hide those particular items was based on a desire to protect his sister from his criminal lifestyle. She was also not called to testify.

Fascinating! I agree with your ruling though as it didn't seem like he had much of a case. The question I have is: if he could afford all these items and owned them lawfully why didn't he just rent a self-storage unit?

That's actually a question I brought up during deliberations. It seems that the padlocked closet in Dorchester was basically a hideaway that various people used for hot stuff. People use rental units for the same purpose, I suppose, but I think it was just his default decision based on his past and the people he associated with.

[scottydog]

Do you know roughly how much he lost, as a result of losing this case, in terms of cash value? Do you suspect he needs the money now?

[RJDiogenes]

That question crossed my mind, too, but it was never really raised in court. The only time a monetary value was placed on anything was on a police report, but neither side addressed it directly. My guess is that the value was somewhere between 15-30,000 dollars. Personally, I never got the impression that it was about money.

[jgc]

Well, wow! This is sure more interesting than the trial I was not chosen to be a juror for.

It's interesting that you called Myles a "charming rogue". As soon as I read that, my mind went to Robert Wagner, who guested as Tony DiNozzo, Sr on NCIS. And who else did he play years ago? You tell me.

[RJDiogenes]

Well, wow! This is sure more interesting than the trial I was not chosen to be a juror for.

The judge told us afterwards that she had never seen anything like it.

It's interesting that you called Myles a "charming rogue". As soon as I read that, my mind went to Robert Wagner, who guested as Tony DiNozzo, Sr on NCIS. And who else did he play years ago? You tell me.

Alexander Mundy, of course, from It Takes A Thief. "Oh, Al, I'm not asking you to spy... I'm just asking you to steal."

[RJDiogenes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o7JV1crjmg

[Gary]

This was a very interesting read. I found my course in Criminal Law to be of utmost interest because of the standards surrounding valid searches and the proper execution of a warrant. Your initial background to that really piqued my interest because it irks me to no end when the police can't follow simple procedures (or the law).

One thing I hate is the proof-of-ownership criteria when it comes to stolen artwork. We must have had two or three cases related to that in one of my business law cases. I could never keep straight the court's reasoning in what I thought would be a no-brainer over who was the rightful owner.

Your description of the events and how the jurors conducted themselves reminds me of a classmate back when I was working on my Associates. The case she was a juror on involved a woman who had stabbed another individual. I think it was one of those cases of a spurned lover, the old boyfriend, and the new girlfriend. Long story short, when she explained that, when the jurors read the text of the law and applied the law to the circumstances, the defendant was found not guilty by reason of self-defense. It also wasn't a situation where the jury hated to find the defendant not guilty. It was unanimous that, based on the testimony of both sides, she was in fear of her life and safety. Note that this was long before the Stand Your Ground laws started becoming in vogue.

Awesome story, RJ!

[RJDiogenes]

This was a very interesting read. I found my course in Criminal Law to be of utmost interest because of the standards surrounding valid searches and the proper execution of a warrant. Your initial background to that really piqued my interest because it irks me to no end when the police can't follow simple procedures (or the law).

Based on that, do you feel it was inappropriate for them to seize the contents of the closet (the Mass Bay Charter was clearly hot property) because the warrant specified drugs?

One thing I hate is the proof-of-ownership criteria when it comes to stolen artwork. We must have had two or three cases related to that in one of my business law cases. I could never keep straight the court's reasoning in what I thought would be a no-brainer over who was the rightful owner.

Do you think Myles met the criteria in this case?

Awesome story, RJ!

Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. It was certainly an interesting experience.

[scottydog]

But you still haven't told us much about the other jurors. Were there any jerks, any hotheads, any raving lunatics who took an extreme stand?

Any odd characters who will pop up in your short stories?

[Gary]

This was a very interesting read. I found my course in Criminal Law to be of utmost interest because of the standards surrounding valid searches and the proper execution of a warrant. Your initial background to that really piqued my interest because it irks me to no end when the police can't follow simple procedures (or the law).

Based on that, do you feel it was inappropriate for them to seize the contents of the closet (the Mass Bay Charter was clearly hot property) because the warrant specified drugs?

It depends how the warrant was worded and whether or not the area searched was described in the warrant; otherwise, defense counsel would have had the evidence tossed in a suppression hearing.

One thing I hate is the proof-of-ownership criteria when it comes to stolen artwork. We must have had two or three cases related to that in one of my business law cases. I could never keep straight the court's reasoning in what I thought would be a no-brainer over who was the rightful owner.

Do you think Myles met the criteria in this case?

I don't know the facts of the case, so it's difficult to determine. Based on your rehashing I suspect there was enough evidence to prove he was hoarding ill-gotten gains.

Awesome story, RJ!

Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. It was certainly an interesting experience.

[RJDiogenes]

But you still haven't told us much about the other jurors. Were there any jerks, any hotheads, any raving lunatics who took an extreme stand?

No jerks, but definitely a variety of people. There was a woman about my age (we figured out we both like Wild Wild West); a quiet guy in his 40s who became Jury Foreman and did a good job, so I'm thinking he had some management experience; an attractive Asian woman from right here in North Quincy who had a nice sense of humor but is sadly about twenty-five years younger than me; another Asian woman around college age; another woman who was probably about thirty, quiet but friendly; a Black woman in her 40s who had been on three juries before, but who didn't take disagreement very well (during deliberations, she essentially blocked us out and retreated into her cell phone, becoming unresponsive); another White guy in his 30s who really didn't want to be there (he was late every day, spent testimony time looking at his phone, and ran out the door without a word when we were released, even though the rest of us stayed to talk to the judge); another White guy my age or older who was actually a lawyer, so had some good insights; a very quiet White woman who was probably in her 30s who had a bit of a stubborn streak and wouldn't agree on a verdict until she had a couple of questions clarified; a young guy in his early 20s who had a very Goth look, but was actually cheerful and friendly; and another college-age kid from South Korea who had just become a citizen and got his jury summons just weeks later, and who was very outgoing and took copious notes (he also lives in South Weymouth, right near where I used to live when I was his age). Everybody took the job very seriously, though there was plenty of joking around, and put in a sincere effort to make the best possible decision (even the guy who didn't want to be there participated in the deliberations).

Any odd characters who will pop up in your short stories?

Nobody terribly odd, but most of them would make good characters. Same with the judge and the court clerk. The judge was a woman who was probably in her 40s, very friendly and quite unflappable, who went to great lengths to make sure that we knew what was going on and what we were there to do, and the court clerk was a very friendly guy who was always there to help us out, especially during deliberations. During the long wait on Monday morning, the guy who didn't want to be there disappeared for a while-- he said he was going to his car, but when the South Korean kid went for him, he couldn't find him. The court clerk kept his good humor and tracked him down, making light of it the whole time.

It depends how the warrant was worded and whether or not the area searched was described in the warrant; otherwise, defense counsel would have had the evidence tossed in a suppression hearing.

No question was ever raised about the validity of the warrant, so I assume that was taken care of long before we heard anything. Since they found the stolen pharmaceuticals right off the bat, that seemed to give them license to search the rest of the place-- and, of course, the Mass Bay Charter was there in the closet, raising the likelihood that everything in there was stolen.

I don't know the facts of the case, so it's difficult to determine. Based on your rehashing I suspect there was enough evidence to prove he was hoarding ill-gotten gains.

We thought so, and no evidence that he owned anything, which was the question put to us-- especially since several of the rifles in the closet had been proven to belong to museums.

[scottydog]

^^ That's a great ensemble. I'm glad there was good leadership shown by the judge and by your jury foreman.

Now I'm curious how they've been describing you to their friends. "Then there was this guy in his 50s with really long hair. He was _________" (fill in the blank)