However, once the other witnesses were brought in one by one, the defense’s strategy became more clear. Witnesses’ testimony, by and large, did not jibe with the police report. No witnesses testified in court that they had actually seen Darrell Johnson receive a gun or shoot it. And no one testified that they had even seen Alfred Anderson in the area.

  A few people in the audience muttered to each other between witnesses. "Did anybody actually see these boys do anything?" asked one woman.

  School nurse Kim Paulin was the last on the stand. Detective Barnes had testified that she’d based her assumptions about the incident on information received from Paulin, who, said Barnes, had "seen the whole thing … because she was in a big glass window right above where the incident occurred."

  But when Paulin takes the stand, her testimony – like that of nearly every other witness called to the stand – does not match the police report on crucial details. Paulin says that when the shooting took place, she was in her office, Room 202, on the second floor of Woodson school. But, she testifies, she was seated at her desk, which does not face the window.

  It was only after she heard "a pop and then kids running and screaming," that she ran to the window, where she saw "two kids struggling for a weapon."

  The more heavy-set kid came up with the weapon, Paulin notes. Then, she says, "the kid that ran was shot by the kid who picked up the weapon." Paulin testifies that she then grabbed her emergency kit and ran down to apply pressure dressings to the bullet wounds. She learned that the bigger kid was named William Pennington, who had already sustained a gunshot wound to the chest. The skinnier kid was Darrell Johnson.

  "Did you see Darrell Johnson shoot anyone?" asks Judge Taylor. "No," Paulin replies.

  It is a dramatic triumph for the defense. Emboldened by their good showing, they make a motion to dismiss the entire case. Ned McGowan, arguing the case for the District Attorney’s office, says that would be going too far, that there is evidence that prosecution did not introduce today that both places Anderson at
the scene and links Darrell Johnson to the crime.

  Judge Taylor hears both arguments and sits back, ready to make his ruling. He says that he will not dismiss the entire case. But, given the testimony he’s heard, he will grant
the motion to suppress the IDs – the out-of-court identifications such
as the photo lineup and statements made on the police report – that had been made.

  The photo lineup points too heavily toward Alfred Anderson, says Taylor. "They [the mugshots] are all African-American males, but that’s where it – the resemblance – stops," he says.

  And, in the case of Darrell Johnson, the witness testimony did not match up at all with the police report: "People didn’t see what they supposedly saw," says Taylor. "To wit, the nurse who did not see what she saw."

  His ruling made, Taylor moves on to Bunton’s and DuCloux’s motion for a jury trial. "I’m moved to tell you," he says, "that the court is very close to a ruling. This is not a typical juvenile trial."

  Yet he knows that there are concerns. For one thing, his courtroom can barely even accommodate today’s crowd, much less a jury. Then there’s the financial aspect: "It’s well-known that jury trials cost money," he says. "And yet, this [Orleans Parish
juvenile court] system is already known to be impoverished." He asks the defense to give him additional information about how technically and fiscally a jury trial could be accomplished.

  But Taylor makes no bones about the fact that he is leaning toward a jury trial. "I see these young men exposed to consequences already, not just local, but statewide and national media," he says. And, says Taylor, if Anderson and Johnson are found guilty, they would face intense media attention, lose their voting rights, and face long prison sentences. "Don’t they deserve," asks Taylor, "a full constitutional trial before they face a harsh reality?"

  In fact, today’s hearing has very much resembled adult criminal proceedings, notes Taylor. He looks at prosecutor Ned McGowan. "Can you tell me, Mr. DA, that this is more like a civil than criminal proceeding? In what way is this more like a civil proceeding?" The question seems rhetorical, and McGowan doesn’t answer.

  Taylor reveals that he has special insight into juries, since he actually served as a juror on an Orleans Parish first-degree murder case in 1998. He and the other jurors were locked up for four days of deliberation. "I am the only sitting judge in America ever to be sequestered," he says, adding that it made him a believer. "What happens in that jury trial is what makes America work."

  Taylor says that other judges have been calling him and lobbying him, saying that "this is going to add to the dismantlement of the juvenile court system if you rule in favor of a jury trial." Seemingly undaunted by the pressure, Taylor asks the defense for a blueprint of a juvenile jury system within 30 days.

  Bunton and DuCloux submitted such a blueprint last Thursday (May 17). Because the district attorney is appealing Taylor’s suppression of IDs, the proceedings are stayed until that issue is resolved.

  If Taylor grants the motion, it would be the first juvenile jury trial in the state’s history. But before that happens, it would have to make it past District Attorney Harry Connick’s appeals, says Federle.

  The district attorney’s office does not make comments on open cases. But, says Federle, she has no doubt what they’ll do: "Let me tell you right now, if the judge grants this, then the state will appeal to the appellate court immediately. Under Louisiana law, they can do that. And they will. The state’s just not going to let this go forward without challenging it."

  Then the appellate court would rule on the decision, says Federle. But it may not stop there. Some observers say that Alfred Anderson and Darrell Johnson could be the first juveniles granted a jury trial on the basis of the United States Constitution. This question and the high-profile nature of the case could bring the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, these insiders say.

  Federle says that it’s hard to tell what cases the U.S. Supreme Court will choose to hear. Yet the time is ripe. "Many of the issues that juvenile court judges and lawyers deal with have not been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court," she says. After all, the last big Supreme Court cases dealing with juvenile rights were in the 1960s and 1970s, and a lot has changed since then. Says Federle: "Given the shift in emphasis in juvenile courts, it might be time to revisit the question of whether or not a jury trial in juvenile court is appropriate as a constitutional matter."

Judge Taylor ends his
comments of the day by apologizing again for snapping at Alfred Anderson’s mother. He then asks
for people’s patience as they face what could be a very lengthy case: "Ladies and gentlemen," he says, "this is a matter that will be going on for some time."

  In fact, legal insiders estimate that if the case did go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could be four years before it is heard.

  Taylor addresses Darrell Johnson’s mother and Alfred Anderson’s mother and grandmother, who will be spending lots of time in his court in the next several months. "Please realize," Taylor advises, "that I’m trying to balance this situation and manage it as best I can."

  The family members stand up and turn back toward the courtroom door, talking about the day’s events. A jury trial? Yeah, it would be nice. But for now, they’ve got other things on their minds. Catrice Johnson says that she’s trying to get Darrell to work harder on his therapy so that he can get out of that wheelchair. Alfred’s grandmother and mother talk to a school advocate who was in sitting in today’s audience – she thinks that she can help Alfred get into a nearby school.

  As they file out of the courtroom, they leave Judge Taylor at the front, gathering up his papers. .

Editor’s Note: Gambit Weekly chose not to publish the defendants’ pictures in this article. The lineup depicted on the cover is a photo illustration and does not depict actual defendants.