Chapter 13 - JURY SELECTION
The courtroom filled slowly.
Potential jurors were asked about corporal punishment, family loyalty, viral videos, and whether public accusations affected their judgment.
Several had seen the clip.
Some believed any adult striking a child was automatically guilty of the most serious possible crime.
Others believed family discipline should remain private.
Both extremes created problems.
The final jury included parents, nonparents, a retired teacher, a warehouse manager, a nurse, and a man who said his family “never called police on each other.”
Quinn asked what he meant.
“We handled things ourselves.”
“Could you apply the law if evidence showed a crime inside a family?”
He hesitated.
He was excused.
Blake entered wearing a dark suit.
He looked smaller without Mom and Dad sitting directly behind him.
Diane sat with her attorney on the prosecution side only when called.
Warren attended from the public gallery for the first morning, then stopped appearing.
Opening statements remained focused.
Quinn said:
“This case is about a thirty-six-year-old man using his full adult strength against a two-year-old child because she touched a decoration.”
The defense said:
“This case is about a split-second parental-style reaction transformed into a criminal campaign by a sister with decades of resentment.”
I felt anger rise at the word resentment.
Rebecca touched my wrist.
The defense was allowed to test motive.
Caroline testified first.
She described filming the birthday song.
She saw Blake’s expression change before the slap.
“He looked furious that Lily did not immediately obey.”
“Did Lily pull the decoration?” Quinn asked.
“No.”
“Did anything fall?”
“No.”
“Did she strike Blake?”
“No.”
The defense asked why Caroline did not intervene.
“I froze.”
“So your memory is affected by guilt?”
“Possibly. That is why the video matters.”
The answer strengthened her.
Thomas Reed testified that Blake calmly retrieved his drink afterward.
“He did not look shocked by what he had done.”
The defense objected to interpretation.
The judge limited Thomas to observable behavior.
“He picked up the glass and took a sip.”
Dr. Patel showed no graphic images.
He explained swelling, redness, tenderness, and the risk of striking a toddler’s face.
He did not claim permanent physical injury.
The harm was real without exaggeration.
Officer Brooks authenticated the video and my messages.
The defense played my statement:
You’d better be prepared to explain yourselves to the police.
“You had decided your brother was guilty before any examination.”
“I had watched him hit my daughter.”
“Your phone did not record the contact visually.”
“My eyes did.”
Then the defense played my call to Dad from later case records? No, that call not relevant here; different story. In this story, there was no father call. Good. Need stay consistent.
They showed my reporter comment calling Blake dangerous.
I admitted it.
“You wanted consequences.”
“Yes.”
“You wanted to end his relationship with Sophie.”
“I wanted professionals to decide whether she was safe.”
The lawyer asked whether I hated Blake.
“I hate what he did.”
“A careful answer.”
“An honest one.”
My testimony would continue the next day.
As I left the stand, Blake looked at Lily’s photograph on the evidence monitor.
For a fraction of a second, his face softened.
Then he noticed the jury watching.
May you like
The softness disappeared.
Performance had returned.
