Mind Travels - But is it Justice?

Many of you know my travels were interrupted between January 6  and the first week of March this year as I was selected to serve on a Federal jury. The criminal case involved three defendants (two humans and a corporation) and 22 counts involving international espionage, conspiracy, sale of trade secrets, income tax fraud and bankruptcy fraud. We’re talking China and TiO2 by chlorination process. TiO2 may mean nothing to you, but to the owners of the trade secrets in question, it’s worth billions. TiO2 (titanium dioxide) is a fine powder that’s an ingredient in everything white, including paint, porcelain, paper, and yes, the fillings in Oreo cookies and Twinkies and your teeth. 

There are five companies in the world who use this process, and one of them is E.I. DuPont, the U.S.’s major by-chlorination manufacturer, and one of the biggest honchos in the game. Much of this process is public knowledge—however, a few measurements within the plant build are closely guarded secrets.

Every day, 16 of us picked at random from more than 90 “candidates” listened to testimony by the FBI, IRS, and various experts and involved parties while examining about a third of nearly 3000 documents, pictures and engineering charts in evidence. I nodded off periodically, as did everyone, including the attorneys—sounds terrible, doesn’t it? At times I wondered if they were doing it on purpose. I learned a lot about the US judicial system.

After 16 weeks of testimony, I was informed I was first alternate—so I didn’t even get the chance to join deliberations. We all took notes during the trial, but our books were shredded at the end. The remaining 12 jurors were a motley group, among them a phone company employee, truck driver, a coach, a bus driver, a computer engineer, a librarian—smart, dedicated people, though no one had ever owned a business, worked in chemical engineering, or did sales presentations for a living. In other words, most of us were not remotely "peers" of the defendants.

In a trial, the only information a juror hears is what’s presented—so the strength of the case rests on the ability to pick and choose what to present, and cleverness in countering what the other side has presented—we’ve learned all this from TV. A lot of evidence is suppressed before the jury sits down (and sometimes during the trial). In real life, the government attorneys were eager, earnest, and massively outgunned by the defense attorneys, who were sharp and well-fortified with cash. The expert witnesses called by the prosecution (that’s the government, of course) limped along, second-rate picks by any yardstick. The defense dazzled with top echelon star witnesses (who were paid between $100K and $250K for their time). In my next life…

This case would never have come to trial, I believe, if DuPont hadn’t tried to set up a TiO2 plant in China and failed (supposedly because DuPont wanted to control the money and/or wanted to dump waste. Those reasons don’t make sense; if China wanted the trade secrets that went along with the manufacture of TiO2, they could have easily stolen them after the plant was built, then built their own plant without much danger of recrimination—something else was going on here). Mandarin-speaking defendant #1 and his company won the contract instead, claiming that he could duplicate the famous DuPont process, as he was consulting with former DuPont employees (defendant #2) without the theft of trade secrets—there was another former DuPont consultant, though the jury was told he died before the trial. Only after the trial did we learn he committed suicide.

Reminiscent of a two-year-old stomping his foot and shouting, "If I can't have it, nobody can", DuPont presented the FBI with an anonymous note (?!) claiming defendant #1 and a Chevron employee who had worked as a minor consultant for him were stealing trade secrets. The Chevron employee and his wife (close friends of defendant #1's family) lost their jobs and home, but they stayed out of prison—I suspect because he turned state’s evidence against defendant #1--could he have written the "anonymous" note? Either way, the FBI does force people to turn on their friends to save their own skins. In fact, if defendant #2 had turned, he probably wouldn’t be on trial. I honestly believe he thought he did nothing wrong.

Long story short, the jury convicted both defendants on all counts. If I were there, I would have fought to clear defendant #2 of conspiracy at least—I believe he was brought on board strictly for the dog-and-pony show to get the sale in China, a common business sales practice. I’ve used it myself. 

After learning of the suicide of the other consultant, I am even more convinced that defendant #2 wasn’t the one who brought in the incriminating charts and documents. He got painted by the same broad brush as defendant #1, who, yes, was guilty of income tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud to the tune of more than eight million bucks.

Justice is a relative term, and I’m not at all sure it was done in this case. Two families were destroyed, right or wrong. One thing I do know—don’t get on the sticky side of a major US corporation or the FBI. The former is making pillow talk with the latter, and the latter is full of eager, earnest, righteous people who can’t wait to make your life a misery, justified or not.