Stupid juror tricks: The Flirt
There’s always one. That juror you have an uneasy feeling about.
You can’t put your finger on it.
The juror somehow made it through voir dire okay, but your “nut job” detector has been beeping insistently throughout trial, and you just hope and pray you can get to a verdict.
You breathe a sigh of relief once deliberations have begun. Another couple of hours and your worries should be over.
But then that juror passes a note to the judge. Here we go.
The farce of farces played out in the County Court of Warren County, New York.
In May 2008, Alicia Lewie was on trial for complicity in the beating death of her seven-month-old son at the hands of her live-in boyfriend. She faced charges of manslaughter, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child.
The trial was held in the courtroom of Judge John Hall.
Michael Keenan represented Lewie at trial.
District Attorney Kathleen Hogan handled the state’s case. Hogan was aided by Assistant District Attorney Matt Burin.
Hogan presented a strong case showing that Lewie stood by while her boyfriend abused her son. As the jury entered deliberations, guilty verdicts appeared in the offing.
But then a female juror sent Judge Hall a note that dumbfounded one and all.
First, she asked permission to read a statement in which she thanked everyone involved in the case, including the defendant, for allowing her to serve as a juror. (Oh my God! A genuine Mrs. Center of the Universe!)
So having erased any doubts that the trial was actually all about her, the juror proceeded to lob another bombshell.
She asked the court to refer her to a divorce lawyer and — describing him as a “cutie” – requested the name and phone number of Assistant District Attorney Burin.
Seeing where the case was heading, Keenan eagerly demanded a mistrial on the ground that the juror was clearly biased in favor of the prosecution.
That must have been a real kick in the teeth to Kathleen Hogan, seeing her whole case jeopardized because some loopy juror confused her newbie second chair with Johnny Depp.
And you can just imagine Judge Hall, feeling that old tension headache coming back, worriedly running his fingers through his famous gray mane as he tries to figure out a way to avoid having the fruits of a jury trial flushed down the tubes.
You see, there were no alternate jurors available.
So in an effort to salvage the trial, Hall immediately reprimanded the juror, making it crystal clear that her actions were inappropriate. That done, the judge conducted an inquiry into her ability to remain fair and impartial.
Satisfied with Mrs. Lonely Heart’s profuse apologies, Judge Hall refused to declare a mistrial and Lewie was convicted.
While a tough call, it seems as though Hall made the right decision.
Earlier this month, the New York Appellate Division agreed that a mistrial was unwarranted.
Under state law, a juror must be discharged only if she “is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature.”
The appellate court concluded that the lovelorn juror’s expressed infatuation did not rise to that level.
“While the note was undoubtedly inappropriate, we agree with County Court that a mistrial was not required. Not only did the juror repeatedly assure the court that she could be fair, but she recognized the inappropriateness of her actions, apologized to all concerned and, more importantly, did not at any time express a predisposition towards any of the parties involved in the trial. …
“County Court conducted an appropriate inquiry into the juror’s ability to be fair and justified its conclusion that she was not of ‘a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict,’” the appeals court said. (People v. Lewie)
— Pat Murphy
patrick.murphy@lawyersusaonline.com
Check out the Circuit Blitz on Twitter!
The Blitz is a daily review of the noteworthy decisions issued by the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.
To follow the Blitz, go to:
