As a member of the jury in the smoke-shop trial, I’m dismayed, though hardly surprised, that the Rhode Island State Police and Governor Carcieri are claiming some kind of vindication from the verdict. In fact, the one thing that all 12 members of the jury agreed on from the outset was that this travesty was the result of poor leadership on all sides. The state acted reprehensibly in setting up a raid, complete with undercover police inside the smoke shop and dire warnings about armed tribal members, that was certain to provoke outrage and anger. Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas acted unwisely in arranging a media-friendly confrontation: He told tribal members that their sovereignty made it illegal for the police to serve a search warrant on tribal property. The truth is that the Narragansetts signed an agreement with the state to abide by state law, and the chief sachem clearly knows that.

But the question before us was not whether the leadership acted poorly. The question before us was whether tribal members assaulted police, engaged in disorderly conduct, and resisted arrest.

As a jury, we had to decide, unanimously, on all 16 charges. Our viewpoints varied as widely as those appearing on the editorial pages, blogs and talk-radio shows. The only way we would ever reach consensus was by agreeing on some principles: first, that the police were intentionally provocative when they came on the land in such a rush and in such numbers; second, that people have to be held accountable for their behavior, even when misled; and third, that we could not trust the testimony from the State Police and could only convict on the basis of video and photographs that showed us misbehavior beyond a reasonable doubt.

This third point deserves a moment’s pause: Of the 13 members of the Rhode Island State Police who appeared before us during that trial, not a single trooper appeared to us to be completely trustworthy. All appeared at least artfully evasive, some downright dishonest. Not a single one of the convictions was based on the testimony of state troopers.

Because I was there for every minute of testimony and because I participated in the jury deliberations, it seems absolutely clear to me that this verdict is far from an endorsement of the state police, Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch and the governor. Only a very narrow view of the trial — that any finding of guilt was a victory for the state, and only a not-guilty on every charge would have been a victory for the Narragansetts — could possibly interpret the verdict as vindication for the state.

After six weeks on jury duty, I hope to never see the inside of another courtroom again. But if I were called tomorrow to serve on a jury that was to decide whether individual members of the Rhode Island State Police used unnecessary force, tried to provoke the members of the tribe, and acted absolutely unprofessionally in their actions that day, I would gladly do so and sit for another six weeks. If I could judge the actions of the governor, the attorney general, and the leadership of the state police, I’d willingly sit in court for another year.

Finally, if Governor Carcieri is being truthful when he says that he hopes for a “more cooperative future” with the tribe, then he ought to offer to re-negotiate the Memorandum of Joint Agreement, the document in which the Narragansetts agree that state law applies on tribal land, with Chief Matthew Thomas and the Narragansetts. However, given the events leading up to that day and the governor’s subsequent behavior with regard to the smoke-shop raid, the trial, and the Narragansett Indians, I’m not holding my breath for the day when the tribe gets a fair shake from the governor.

DON REESE

Providence