Whatcom Office of Public Defense

Context

During my time studying at Western Washington University, I was recommended to the Office of Public Defense by one of my professors. After meeting with some of the public defenders, I was hired on to do some research into a few high-profile cases.

Here is one of those cases.

My Role

Jury Researcher

Whatcom vs. Chabuk

An Introduction

The first case that I was put on was Whatcom vs. Chabuk. The case centered around a grad student who was at his apartment and heard fighting. With his girlfriend, he went to check out the commotion. After confronting the fighters, the fighters chased him back to his apartment where he stood at his door, pulled his gun, and shot one of the chasers three times. The defense was going for the self-defense angle.

Goal

The defense attorney wanted to know what the people of the county, aka the people who make up the jury thought about guns and self-defense. The reason why that is needed to be known is because Whatcom is a very diverse county, people in the city are overwhelmingly liberal, but people in the country tend to lean, more often than not, conservative. These two ideals can clash on many different viewpoints.

By doing research on the topic, the public defender could have an informed voir dire (jury selection) process.

Process

Methods

Evidence Review: For two weeks, I read everything I could get my hands on about the case. I was supplied everything from the defense and what we could get from the prosecution. I had to keep track of every trend. Every time a new topic got brought up I made a note. In the end, I had an overview of the case and evidence.

Paper Survey: The quickest method to get many responses is a survey. Survey methodology also allowed me to understand how people felt about certain topics. I choose this methodology, because interviewing people was slow and I did not need to understand the individual, but the county as a whole. In addition, an online survey would not allow me to control for user location which, if not from Whatcom County, could bias my results.

Guerrilla Interviewing: I did not have the luxury of automating who responded to my survey; an online survey would not allow me to control for user location which, if not from Whatcom County, could bias my results. With that in mind, I took to the streets. I would go to coffee shops, diners, and even knock on doors. To ensure that I had a good representative group, I would move to a new location after every five participants.

Results

With the goal to use the peremptory challenges on the right people during the voir dire (jury selection) process, I suggested to the public defender to attempt to:

Retain the jurors who agreed on the following statements (more likely to find him not guilty)

When feeling threatened, using a gun for self-protection is justifiable.
Gun restrictions are too harsh.
A person drinking alcohol is more likely to become aggressive than someone who is not drinking.
It is acceptable to carry a gun on your person as long as you have the proper permits.
It is acceptable to use a gun as a means of self-defense.
A hostile demeanor including vulgar language is enough of a threat to justify self-defense.
It is acceptable to use a gun for protection if there are two or more strangers pursuing you.
A person has the right to use a gun to protect himself or others from potential harm.

Remove the jurors who agreed on the following statements (more likely to find him guilty)

I believe that guns should only be used by trained individuals.
If more than one shot is fired during an altercation, then it is no longer self-defense.

Impact

While the case did not go as we hoped, he was charged with second degree assault (he was later dropped of all charges) the Office of Public Defense liked my work and hired me for multiple other cases,