Twelve Angry Men Debate Criminal Conservation Easements
I’m gettin’ kinda fed up with posting about civil society in the culture wars. But the news in civil society increasingly concerns skirmishes in that war. What are you gonna do? But first, a word of thanks to Ted Turner, the billionaire media mogul and philanthropist whose $1 billion donation resulted in the United Nations Foundation. Thank him for Turner Classic Movies. I love classic movies, especially Twelve Angry Men. We all know the defendant was poor deprived Puerto Rican kid whose father beat him. And he recently purchased a switchblade too. The writing was subtle yet clear enough that we unconsciously assume the defendant’s race; we assume the defendant to be brown or black, in other words. I borrowed the last assertion from my Generative AI, but its consistent with my memory of the movie, except I thought race was explicitly stated. Turns out it wasn’t and so I made the same assumption as some of the angry men. Henry Fonda was definitely woke, though, back then.
A similar scenario is taking place as we speak in Georgia’s Northern District. Herbert Lewis is on trial for defrauding and conspiring to defraud the United States in connection with a conservation easement generating “hundreds of millions of dollars in deductions” and fees upwards of $60 million over a four or five year period, according to one report. There are nearly 40 counts in the criminal indictment, by the way. I thought at first that this post would be nothing more than voyeuristic pleasure, looking in on the angry men and women deliberating the defendant’s fate. But the indictment is fascinating and instructive, especially if you want see how the conservation easement sausage is really made. The indictment concisely explains pass through taxation, charitable contributions in general, and conservation easements as an exception to the rule that a donor must part with everything to get a deduction.
But back to the lesser point. The case went to the jury last week and all hell broke loose. From the Bloomberg Report:
One Black man, Juror 44, allegedly said the defendants deserved to go to jail “because they are rich, White and entitled.” A White female, Juror 26, told the judge that she’s “a White person standing up for White people.” The judge had to repeatedly intervene. “There will be no telling another person ‘fuck you,’ or anything like that,” Batten said, warning that he could hold them in contempt if the behavior continued. “Every one of you deserves that dignity.”
Things aren’t going well when the judge has to ask whether jurors “kiss their mama with that dirty mouth?” And race was neither a factor nor even mentioned during trial. But there it is, sitting right up in the deliberation room. Well, when the prosecutors heard about it, they asked the judge to remove Juror 44 or 26 or both. I wondered, at first, why the Judge just didn’t do the safest thing and dismiss them both without making findings. But then when questioned, Juror 26 uttered the quote above. Whatever 44 said, he wasn’t stupid enough to say it to the judge. I imagine when the judge asked 44, he just denied saying anything. And there was no shortage of evidence that the proverbial Karen was not quite right in the head., at one point going to a different floor in the courthouse and refusing to deliberate at all. But I wasn’t there, I am just relaying what was reported. To say it straight to the judge, even or especially a white judge, pretty much ties the judges’ hands. Right? Not only did the judge hear the juror proclaim her defense of white millionaires, he also found that she lied about juror 44. Some people are just looking for a fight, I swear. Needless to say, defense counsel objected strenuously to 26’s removal. Heck, they probably went ballistic because the judge had kicked the hang-woman off what would have been a hung jury. I don’t blame defense counsel. I ain’t tryna get a fair jury either if I’m defense counsel. That’s the state’s job, it ain’t mine. Nope.
darryll k. jones