A Jury Of 12 Of Your Peers? Not Really!

Spencer Freeman – Criminal Defense Attorney – Pierce County, WA

“That’s a whole other interesting subject though, because a jury appears in that case…my client was a 19-year-old African-American kid…man. Our jury pool, when we first got our jury, the venire was of 60 people. Three of them were African-American. By the time that we got whittled down to the 12 that were actually going to decide the case, none were African-American. None were from the area, the county that he was from. None were his age. You got to look at that…is that really a jury of your peers? Nobody understood how he grew up, and why he may have made the decisions that he made.”

Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media

“That raises a whole new area of discussion. That is…when you pick a jury, when you are able to get down to it (12), is it truly representative of that person? But if it’s not, what can you do about it? You can’t?”

Spencer Freeman – Criminal Defense Attorney – Pierce County, WA

“There’s not much you can do about it. I think the more accurate term, rather than ‘jury selection’, would be ‘jury deselection’. When we’re picking a jury, I’m not going through there picking who I want, I’m going through there and figuring out who would be the absolute worst for my case, to hear my case, and kick them off. And then you’re left with what you’re left with. And there’s not much you can do about it. Prosecutors aren’t supposed to kick people off their jury simply because of race. They’ve got to have a reason to justify it. But that’s not a very high bar. In our case that I described, the prosecutor did kick off the one remaining African-American that was on the case. Did kick that person off. There was enough of a justification. Although we challenged that, the Judge let him kick that person off.”

Born and raised in Colorado, Mr. Freeman stayed in the Pacific Northwest after graduating cum laude from Seattle University School of Law in 1995, at which time he was awarded the National Order of Barristers by the National Board of Governors. After gaining extensive trial experience as a prosecutor for the City of Tacoma, Mr. Freeman worked locally for several small law firms focused on personal injury and criminal defense. In 2000, he began to work at a downtown Seattle law firm, where he worked with some of the best lawyers in the nation. During the better part of the next six years, Mr. Freeman was blessed to do work for one of the largest national television providers litigating matters involving the theft of encrypted satellite signals. During this time, he worked closely with corporate counsel and assisted in developing and managing a national litigation campaign. He appeared in federal courts throughout the nation, gaining extensive experience in both federal court litigation and the pursuit of intellectual property thieves attempting to hide on the Internet.

In late 2005, Mr. Freeman decided to open a practice in Tacoma, where his family was growing. Mr. Freeman’s connections locally and nationally nourished his practice over time. He has served the local community as well as handling cases in federal courts across the country. Locally, Mr. Freeman has assisted local businesses in such matters as contentious shareholder disputes and individuals in matters ranging from catastrophic injuries to class A felonies as well as lawsuits against insurance companies for bad faith claims practices. He tried a Whatcom County Superior Court case for a bail bond company that resulted in the first appellate law in Washington truly outlining the rights of fugitive recovery agents. He has tried cases in many counties throughout the State of Washington, argued before the Court of Appeals Division I and Division II and the Washington State Supreme Court.

Mr. Freeman’s practice has taken him beyond Washington State, where he has handled cases for national Internet multi-media companies enforcing copyrights in states such as Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and California. In those cases, he has successfully argued for jurisdiction in the United States against individuals that reside in other countries. Mr. Freeman also represented a publisher against sheriffs regarding First Amendment Rights to distribute a magazine in county jails, resulting in arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the first case law of its kind. He has argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals five times and submitted a briefing to the United States Supreme Court.

On more than several occasions, Mr. Freeman has been retained by parties on the near eve of a trial solely for purpose of being lead trial counsel. One such successful case was against the U.S. Department of Justice in their first trial attempting to enforce the CAN-SPAM Act for the actions of independent contractors.

Mr. Freeman’s passion and strength lay in front of a jury. He finds a beautiful balance between fact witnesses, statutes, case law, rules of evidence, and the different contexts of each jury. Most cases find a resolution before trial, but the best resolution occurs when counsel is prepared to try the case. And, when a case cannot find resolution, Mr. Freeman loves to go to work.