Slice - slice.seriouseats.com

Sausage and Law

Posted by Adam Kuban, January 25, 2006 at 11:27 AM

As you might know, I've been on jury duty. That ended yesterday around 4:30 p.m. when we came to a verdict (guilty on four of the six counts).

While we argued in the jury room, I recalled a quote attributed to Otto von Bismarck: "Those who love sausage and obey the law should not watch either being made." Which in turn led me to think, "Mmmm ... sausage," and then to "Mmmm ... sausage on pizza." But the quote (and the week's legal proceedings) spurred me to deeper reflection on both the law and sausage—specifically: "How hard would it be to make sausage at home?"

If you don't want to make sausage links, which require casings, then it appears to be as easy as coming to agreement on the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge that we considered as jurors.* Even if you do want to stuff casings with your sausage mixture (Heh. That kinda sounds dirty), it only takes a few relatively affordable tools and some time.

Here's a recipe for Italian fennel sausage, as adapted (for pizza) from one found on InMamasKitchen.com:

HOMEMADE ITALIAN SAUSAGE
Makes about 5 pounds

2 tablespoons salt
3 teaspoons fennel seed
2 teaspoons sugar
1 tablespoon crushed hot pepper
1 teaspoon caraway seed
3 teaspoons coriander
5 pounds coarse ground pork butt
1 cup dry red wine
3 cloves garlic, crushed

1. Grind together (preferably in a mortar and pestle) salt, fennel, sugar, hot pepper, caraway, and coriander.
2. In a large bowl, sprinkle herbs over ground pork. Add wine and crushed garlic. Mix well by hand or with the paddle attachment of an electric mixer. Continue until evenly distributed. Be sure to mix well in this step.
3. Cover and place in refrigerator at least 3 hours, to allow flavors to meld.
4. <Test after 3 hours by taking a small portion and sautéing in small pan.
5. Apply to uncooked pizza(s) as chunks (chunk size is by your preference, but smaller chunks will cook faster). Alternatively, for links, you can run meat mixture through a sausage stuffer and into casings. Any extra can be frozen in portions for later use.

For my own reference later, and for yours, I'm going to list some sausage-making links ...

FURTHER READING
SausageMaker.com should have everything you need to get started—casings, prickers, seasonings, what have you. As of this posting, there's a sale (regularly $70, now $50) on three-pound-capacity stuffers, too!

This Sausage-Stuffer Attachment for Kitchen Aid stand mixers might be an option of you've already got a Kitchen Aid. (About $15.) Don't have a Kitchen Aid? Consider getting one. They're great for making pizza dough.

Homemade Italian Sausage Recipe [In Mama's Kitchen]

Another recipe, this one for Italian Fennel Pork Sausage. Notable for its inclusion of Asiago cheese in the mix. Mmm ... cheese.

Related reading: Hot Dogs at Home [Bite by Byte]

* For anyone interested in the legal proceedings I sat through, it was a case involving cocaine importation and weapons possession. The defendant was charged with

1. Conspiracy to Import Cocaine
2. Conspiracy to Distribute or Intent to Distribute Cocaine
3. Importation of Cocaine
4. Distribution or Intent to Distribute Cocaine
5. Possession of a Weapon in Furtherance of a Crime
6. Possession of a Weapon as a Felon

It was an interesting case involving no small amount of intrigue: A cargo container holding smuggled drugs, a heist of the contraband from the container, a botched getaway, theft of the drugs from the conspirator storing them for later delivery, and so on.

I went into the proceedings with the notion "You don't just get arrested for cocaine and weapons possession for no good reason," but I thought I could maintain an open mind with regard to the case nonetheless. After hearing from the first couple of witnesses (fellow conspirators who agreed to testify against the defendant in exchange for the possibility of a reduced sentence), it became pretty clear that our defendant was the lowest man on this smuggling totem pole.

At that point, the government's charges—that the defendant "conspired" to import and distribute cocaine and then actually "imported" it—seemed laughable and I thought that the defendant, while guilty of certain crimes, was not guilty of the over-reaching charges of the Federal government. I mean, all our man did was rent the getaway truck and, last minute, agree to break in to the shipping container and carry the drugs out. Where was the "importation" that the government was charging? And didn't the "conspircy" involve shadowy drug overlords and the minor kingpin who hired the defendant?

I think there was a certain measure of sympathy from the jury. I know I felt it. Even though he didn't testify, the defendant seemed nice. He laughed along with the little jokes made by the judge or attorneys; sat there calmly and quietly, most of the time with a smile; and took loads of notes. Coupled with his patsy status, I think a lot of us wanted to give him a break somehow.

But then we were given our instructions by the judge as to how we should apply the law to the counts laid out in the indictment. That turned everything around.

Surely the guy didn't plan this thing and wasn't guilty of a "conspiracy" in the layman's sense. But according to law, his actions were to be considered "conspiracy" with respect to the Counts 1 and 2 if A.) he entered into his agreement with the "Minor Kingpin" willfully and knowingly, and B.) that even if the defendant himself did not know there was cocaine involved, it was enough that someone in the group of people involved in the crime knew of the cocaine. Thus the Defendant entered into a conspiracy, no matter how small his role or how late he joined. Counts 1 and 2 were (relatively) easy to agree on after that.

On Count 3, we acquited the Defendant, even though I was among a contingent of four hard-ass jurors who believed he was guilty on all drug-related counts. Count 3 regarded the substantive, or actual, importation of cocaine—not the planning or conspiracy to import it, which was covered under Count 1. So here, we had to agree that he "willingly and knowingly imported cocaine into the United States from someplace outside of the United States."

This is an easy one, right? Weren't the drugs "imported" the second the container touched down on U.S. soil? Well ... Depends on what your definition of "import" is. It also hinged on the "aiding and abetting" clause that we were read. According to that clause, if the Defendant helps the importer bring the drugs in, then the Defendant is just as guilty of importing the drugs. My contention was that the entire machination of coke leaving Colombia, getting to U.S. soil was importation. The Minor Kingpin was the importer. The Defendant helped the importer. Therefore he aided and abetted. I also hold the belief that those drugs were not yet "imported" because they did not yet leave the container yard. Still, we asked some questions of the judge, he answered, and a member of the Leniency Contingent let out a squeal of delight that the judge's answer seemed to back their interpretation. The leader of the Hard-Ass Contingent (who did a great job interpreting and explaining the nuances of the law and the judge's instructions) muttered that there was still a way to read the judge's answer that would make Defendant guilty. I agreed, but I think the Hard-Asses were content in the fact that we had tried and so we rolled over on this one, giving Defendant the benefit of the (reasonable) doubt.

Let's turn to the easy counts now, the weapons charges, before I go into the one that gave us the most trouble. Count 5 was Possession of a Weapon in Furtherance of a Crime. Did the Defandant use the gun that was found in his apartment to "further" the crimes in question here? No. By no means. The government failed to show that he had the gun on him during the crime. The Feds' sole argument was that he acquired the gun (a .357 Magnum) to protect his newly acquired lifestyle (i.e., the one that the drug money afforded). That was clearly not a furtherance of the crimes in Counts 1 through 4.

Count 6, Possession of a Weapon as a Felon: Easy. Guilty. His prints were on it. He admitted that he "had been playing around with it" to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (aka "ICE" — and believe me, these guys really like stressing the "ICE" thing). It was a friend's he said, but the fact that he had, or should have had, control over it on his property was enough. It wasn't supposed to be there. Cha-chung.

Count 4 was the most difficult. We agreed that there was indeed actual distribution of cocaine. It was interesting to note that distribution can mean but is not limited to the sale of drugs on the street. Legally, distro is the transfer of an item from one possessor to another, so it can be one-to-one. In this case, if you believed there were drugs involved (I'll get to this in a bit), you had to acknowledge that several transfers occurred.

Say wha? What's this: "If you believed there were drugs involved"? Well, for the drug counts, there were "special interrogatives" that we had to agree on if we found the defendant guilty. The first was "Do you believe cocaine was involved in this count?" and the second was "Do you believe the amount of cocaine involved was more than five kilograms?"

We miraculously agreed on coke being involved in all charges. But the amount was in question. Since the government never seized any actual cocaine, we only had the testimony of the cooperating witnesses as to how much actual cocaine was involved. We heard stories about bags so heavy it took two men to carry them. We pegged the weight of the bags at upwards of a hundred pounds (about 45 kilo). So then what was the problem? The only person to have actually opened the bags and witnessed the actual cocaine was a cooperating witness. The Leniency Contingent was not willing to concede that there was more than 5K without seeing physical evidence. Even though the other Hard-Asses and I believed the circumstantial evidence added up to more than 5K, we just couldn't convince the others.

We argued this one for hours, and this one grew the most heated. "Why would you break into a container yard, risk so much, for less than 5 kilos of coke?" we asked. Leniency Contingent granted us our logic but still didn't feel comfortable saying more than 5K on it without hard evidence. No matter how Hard-Ass Group tried to explain it or reason it, it was clear that we were deadlocked. At some point, Hard-Ass Leader said that he would concede on the "under 5 kilo" as long as we stuck to the Guilty verdict on Count 4. (There had been some noise from some of the Leniency Contingent that now they were uncertain there was any cocaine involved. Ugh.) So when Hard-Ass Leader proposed "Guilty but Under 5" on Count 4, the rest of us Hard-Asses rolled over, too. I think we had all resigned ourselves to this compromise earlier but needed someone to acknowledge it.

That agreed on, a tremendous weight was lifted from us and everyone got all giggly and happy. I tried to remain somber out of respect to the proceedings and the Defendant, who was soon going to hear some shitty news. It didn't seem right to be so happy and laughy that we were moments away from being sprung when a man was just across the hall who was headed for a far worse fate than jury duty.

My experience was pretty positive, though. Our jury was from all walks of life: different races, classes, education levels, points of view, what have you. Despite all that, we were able to come together for this thing, consider some moderately complex points of law, and argue our opinions without resorting to ad hominem attacks or belittlement. Ad the Magistrate Judge who helped select this jury said, "I guarantee you it will be a rich and rewarding experience." And it really was. Granted, I was on a short and interesting case. Maybe the equivalent of making loose-meat sausage as opposed to the stuff-it-into-casings tediousness of a long civil or corporate crime case.

And speaking of sausage, I'm hungry again. Ladies and gentleman, you are dismissed.

1 Comment | Tags: Crime, Pop Culture Pizza, Recipes, Toppings