Quick not-guilty verdict highlights importance of voir dire

McCausland's client was charged with domestic violence telephone harassment for exchanges she had with an adult niece. The case was a year old by the time McCausland was appointed because an original summons had been sent to the wrong address. The niece was no longer upset with her aunt. Still, an assistant city attorney with the Domestic Violence Prosecution Center thought the case had merit and went so far as to threaten to file additional charges the afternoon before trial. 

The client, however, had rejected multiple plea deal offers. She was adamant that she had only exercised her right to express herself during a period when she was upset that she didn't know the whereabouts of her teenage daughter. She called her niece because she thought the niece had valuable information. 

The assistant city attorney didn't end up filing additional charges, but telephone harassment is still a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine. 

During voir dire, McCausland asked prospective jurors whether they had ever been in argument with a family member and said something in the heat of a moment they really didn't mean. She also asked at what point in a family argument they believed police officers need to intervene. People said police officers should intervene when a fight turns physical, or when safety becomes a legitimate concern. McCausland also asked about experiences with lost children. One man told a story about how he lost sight of his child at a Christmas tree farm, and he and his wife had a heated exchange that ended when the child was found. Ultimately, these questions were intended to help the potential jurors relate to the issues they would hear about in the trial if they were selected to serve on the panel. 

The crime of telephone harassment can be committed different ways, either by using threatening language or making multiple calls. At first the assistant city attorney said he was going to prove the defendant made multiple calls, but before trial he decided to focus on language. A Vancouver police officer, who had responded to the niece's 911 call and overheard one of her aunt's phone calls, testified the aunt told the niece that she would "turn your f------ world upside down." 

When the niece took the witness stand, however, she said she couldn't recall any specific threats. The assistant city attorney also called the niece's boyfriend to testify for the prosecution, but he said he didn't remember anything the aunt said, either, and that it was a family matter and he stayed out of it.

When McCausland's client took the stand to testify, she was able to tell her side of the story. She explained how upset she had been about her missing child and how angry she was when she found out her niece had failed to give her crucial information. The experience she shared through her testimony was very similar to the stories jurors had shared about family arguments and lost children.

The jurors deliberated only eight minutes. Due, in part, to the exploration of the issues during voir dire and the client's testimony, they found the defendant not guilty of telephone harassment but guilty of one count of bail jump for missing a scheduled court appearance.