Juries in Baltimore have a rap for being suspicious of police and prosecutors and sympathetic to defendants, most of whom are black. During the past year, I heard many with experience in the city's criminal courts say this would be a slam-dunk for the defense: The jury would deliberate through one pizza lunch, then acquit her, guaranteeing the well-dressed Dixon martyrdom and the mayoralty for as long as she liked.
- Bio | E-mail | Recent columns
- Found guilty, fate in doubt
- What happens after Dixon verdict?
- Reviewing tape before holiday broke deadlock, juror says
- Sheila Dixon's trial, resignation [Pictures]
- Sheila Dixon [Pictures]
- Video: 'Sad day for Baltimore,' prosecutor says
- Juror No. 3 talks about Dixon verdict
- Larry Young and Warren Brown react to verdict
- Trials and Arbitration
- Justice System
- Regional Authority
See more topics »
They were wrong.
Circuit Judge Dennis M. Sweeney picked the perfect word to describe the jury's effort in the Dixon case: "extraordinary."
Of course, the jury did not find Dixon guilty of everything the state threw at her, including the so-called Holly Trolley charges.
But they found one crime in the bunch - a charge that, from my seat in the courtroom, I thought the state proved in a few hours of impeccable testimony a couple of weeks ago.
Our mayor talked a major commercial real estate developer into buying gift cards for needy children, then used them for herself. That part of the state case seemed strongest and most conclusive, almost like an old-fashioned shakedown by a politician of a mover-and-shaker, except the payoff was gift cards and not cash.
Had the jury found Dixon not guilty of that charge, I would have been shocked and declared "jury nullification."
But it didn't happen.
In fact, by the second full day of deliberations, the Dixon case stopped being "much ado about not so much," in the words of Herb Smith, a McDaniel College political science professor and a city resident. By the fourth day, it was a moral victory for Robert Rohrbaugh, the state prosecutor, and his staff.
Obviously, this jury was not going to give Sheila Dixon a free pass.
"That's not something [taking gift cards for the poor] you can do," one of the jurors, who gave her name as Shawana, told reporters outside the courthouse Tuesday.
Shawana added that she had voted for Dixon two years ago.
By that time, of course, this newspaper had raised loads of questions about the mayor's behavior, decisions and ethical guidance system during her tenure as City Council president. Dixon won the 2007 primary and general elections anyway, and that's called voter nullification.
That's life in a democracy. That's how the system is supposed to work. Like them or not, you live with the results of elections - and jury deliberations.
Dixon supporters will continue to complain that the punishment - conviction on a misdemeanor and possible loss of her office and pension - does not fit the crime. There are a lot bigger offenses being perpetrated every day, many of them by shameless men of far greater power and wealth. Our mayor should just apologize, make retribution and be allowed to stay in the office; she's been doing a good job.
I agree: Our mayor has been doing a good job. But our mayor has not been the apologizing kind, and she has now been found guilty of a pathetic crime contrary to a fundamental standard of honesty. The consequences are serious for good reason: Politicians who win our votes and break our laws lose our trust. They should also lose their jobs.