CENTENNIAL, Colo. — Wednesday’s trial proceedings showed that it’s possible to feel bored in the presence of a mass murderer.
Now in its third week, the trial of James Holmes has begun to settle into a routine. Victims of the July 20, 2012, mass shooting at an Aurora movie theater continue to testify daily, but the prosecution has ramped up its presentation of more mundane physical evidence. Jurors have remained engaged and alert throughout the trial, but presentations Wednesday appear to have pushed their limits.
Holmes is on trial for killing 12 people and injuring 70. The prosecution seeks the death penalty, while the defense argues that Holmes is not guilty because he was insane at the time of the attack.
In the morning, to demonstrate that Holmes planned his attack more than a month in advance, the prosecution showed dozens of receipts, shipping labels and ammunition boxes from the his Aurora apartment dumpster. In the afternoon, jurors sat through the repetitive presentation of more than 60 pieces of individual evidence from inside the theater, mostly spent casings, shotgun waddings and live rounds.
Some jurors looked bored and disinterested — as a whole, the jury asked witnesses fewer questions than they have through the trials first 11 days. The day’s final session focused solely on bullet impacts in the theater seats.
Do such monotonous hours affect the jury’s effectiveness?
According to Karen Steinhauser, a criminal defense attorney and adjunct professor at the University of Denver’s College of Law, it all depends on expectations.
“If they think a trial will be like a trial on TV, that’s the problem,” Steinhauser said in an interview. “Trials in general are not as exciting as people think they are, regardless of the kind of case.” She blames shows like CSI for the misperception.
Fortunately, she said, jury selection likely prepared them for the reality.
“I think that’s hopefully when jurors understood that they were in for a long haul,” she said.
But Dan Recht, former president of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, disagrees. He says even the most prepared jury can easily lose interest.
“Especially in a very long trial, there’s a significant risk of jury fatigue and jurors not focusing as well as you would hope they would,” he said in an interview following Wednesday’s trial. He says it’s the prosecution’s responsibility to keep testimony interesting.
Steinhauser argued that because prosecutors have to prove so many counts of murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt, they have no choice but to present every piece of evidence.
“They have to make sure that no stone remains unturned,” she said.
The outcome of the prosecution’s meticulous strategy won’t be clear for several more months. Presenting a case thoroughly and completely without leaving the jury fatigued, Recht said, is “an art form.”
“They can make their case without hundreds of pieces of evidence,” he said. “That’s where discretion comes in.”