Thursday, August 16 , 2018, 5:44 pm | Fair 77º


Diane Dimond: Common Sense Is Needed in the Jury Box

We should all have a profound respect for our jury system.

In a justice system that is obviously not perfect, average citizens put their lives on hold to serve as jurors so defendants get a fair shot at impartiality.

Jurors act as a counterbalance to attorneys’ legal maneuverings as they apply their common sense to the proceedings.

But in a world where defense attorneys use every trick in the book and bend the meaning of reasonable doubt beyond all comprehension, jurors can sometimes be led off the path to justice. I have sat in many courtrooms and watched this process firsthand.

Take the case against Cesar Gonzales-Mugaburu. The complaints about his behavior began as early as 1998. Authorities got disturbing reports that the single foster father in Long Island, N.Y., may have been sexually abusing young boys placed in his care.

But over and over, despite at least 18 separate open child abuse investigations, no action was taken against him. Officials continued to send Gonzales-Mugaburu even more children.

Later, it would be said, there had been a breakdown in communication between the various agencies tasked with keeping the children safe.

Over the years, Gonzales-Mugaburu took in a total of 106 young boys, many of whom suffered mentally illness and had low IQs. He received up to $18,000 each month to care for them.

In March 2016, he was arrested on charges of abusing eight of his wards, children as young as 8 years old: six charges of sexual abuse and two charges of endangering welfare.

At trial, all eight accusers, now ages 16 to 29, tearfully testified. They told the jury heartbreaking stories of trying to get help from school guidance counselors, and visiting social workers and neighbors. One testified he was locked in his room for a month at a time and stripped of his hearing aids.

Their jarring testimony deserves more space than is allowed here, but according to almost everyone in the courtroom, their stories were intense, detailed and so similar as to prove the defendant’s modus operandi.

Gonzales-Mugaburu always maintained his innocence. His attorney, Donald A. Mates Jr., told the jury, “This crazy story that you heard is just that.”

As Mates pointed out to the jury, the state continued to assign more boys to the Gonzales-Mugaburu home. And since the accusers were “troubled boys,” they were likely to make up stories and be motivated by money. He mentioned that they would probably sue the agencies responsible for placing them in that home.

Mates waved the flag of reasonable doubt over and over.

The jury bought it. After a five-week trial, Gonzales-Mugaburu was acquitted of all charges.

The jury foreman, Tim Carney, told reporters after the verdict: “I could not put a man away for the rest of his life on what they gave us, the evidence they produced. There was nothing ever to back them up.”

To this veteran court watcher, this outcome underscores two flaws within the justice system.

First, that judges do not adequately explain reasonable doubt in layman’s terms. As one of my former Court TV colleagues once explained it to me: “A lawyer might tell a jury that the sun will not come up tomorrow. But common sense tells them that is not so.” In other words, our system relies on the common sense of jurors.

The second flaw is that prosecutors do not or are not allowed by the judge to explain to jurors the psychological mindset of child sex abuse victims. Their stories don’t spill out all at once in a coherent narrative. They gradually reveal their horrors, watching to see how adults react to each disclosure. And experts say that young boys who have been sexually assaulted are the most reticent to reveal, often never telling what happened lest their manhood be questioned.

Eight males who the prosecution called victims told their stories to the Gonzales-Mugaburu jury. An ex-police officer neighbor testified that one of the boys was often locked outside for hours in the snow and that he told the boys they could come to him for food.

Yet the jurors apparently wanted corroboration? Like an eyewitness to sexual activity? Physical scars proving the allegations? A school counselor who would admit to hearing a boy’s plea but ignoring it?

None of that would ever happen outside a TV crime drama. There are few Perry Mason moments in a sex abuse trial. Common sense must prevail.

I don’t like to question a jury’s verdict because they alone heard all the evidence and carefully deliberated. But this time, I fear this jury may have unplugged their common sense.

Diane Dimond is the author of Thinking Outside the Crime and Justice Box. Contact her at [email protected], follow her on Twitter: @DiDimond, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >