Stupid juror tricks: MySpace ‘friend’ wrecks trial
While some people avoid jury duty like the plague, others seem to equate getting seated on a jury to grabbing a part on a reality TV show.
They’ll do anything to make the cut. That includes failing to mention that they’re a MySpace friend of that poor wretch who faces prison time if convicted.
Lawyers and judges are having some rocky moments trying to get a handle on juror Internet use.
And it doesn’t get much rockier than when a juror/MySpace friend named Amber manages to upend a corruption trial of a county deputy.
It was the winter of 2008 and Amber Hyre was on course for her fifteen minutes of fame.
Braxton County, West Virginia, was all abuzz.
One of the county’s finest, Deputy Sheriff Christopher Shane Dellinger, was going to trial on charges that he falsified accounts regarding his management of state crime prevention grants.
Amber had been called for jury duty and she didn’t want to miss out on the biggest event in the county since 1772 when frontiersmen massacred Captain Bull and his band of friendly Delaware Indians.
All Amber needed to do was get through voir dire. And she did! Yes!!!
Amber was one of twelve jurors to convict Deputy Dellinger on three counts of falsifying accounts and one count of obtaining money by fraudulent pretenses.
Now, Amber could bask in the afterglow, spinning yarns to her friends about her undoubtedly pivotal role in Braxton County’s version of Twelve Angry Men.
But then a county investigator showed up at her door.
During deliberations it occurred to Dellinger that the Amber who served on the jury determining his fate might be the same Amber who was his “friend” on MySpace.
Dellinger hadn’t recognized her immediately because apparently she didn’t look at all like her picture on MySpace. Funny how often that happens.
Dellinger’s lawyer reported this suspicion to the trial court immediately following the verdict. The ensuing investigation turned up some unfortunate facts.
One week before Dellinger’s trial, Amber had sent a message to the deputy on MySpace.
Amber wrote: “Hey, I don’t know you very well, but I think you could use some advice! I haven’t been in your shoes for a long time but I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life. You might not understand why you are hurting right now but when you look back on it, it will make perfect sense. I know it is hard but just remember that God is perfect and has the most perfect plan for your life. Talk soon!”
After Amber sent the message to Dellinger, the two became MySpace “friends,” which allowed Dellinger to view postings on Amber’s MySpace page and vice versa.
Being MySpace friends is not a crime, but the trial judge in Dellinger’s case was taken aback by the fact that Amber had remained silent during voir dire when he had asked prospective jurors whether they had a business or social relationship with Dellinger.
Amber also referenced her participation in the Dellinger trial in a later post that said “Amber Just got home from Court and getting ready to get James and Head to church! Then back to court in the morning!” She also described her “mood” as “blah.”
As if this weren’t enough, the investigation revealed that Amber had other connections with Dellinger.
They had once lived in the same apartment complex, exchanging casual greetings.
To top it off, it turned out that Amber was related by marriage to the Braxton County Commissioner, who testified in the case, and had a brother-in-law who worked for another witness in the case.
In a hearing on juror misconduct, Amber tried to explain that she failed to speak up about these matters during voir dire because she thought they were trivial.
The trial judge didn’t buy it, but in the end decided not to order a new trial, perhaps because Amber voted to convict Dellinger despite apparently being predisposed in his favor.
But earlier this month, the state’s highest court, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, decided that Amber had engaged in a “repeated lack of candor” during voir dire that so undermined the process that a new trial was necessary.
“Simply put, [Amber's] reticence during voir dire foreclosed any challenge for cause or use of a peremptory challenge by [Dellinger]. Nevertheless …the trial court concluded that [Amber] had been a ‘fair and impartial juror’ and ‘that her links to [Dellinger) and witnesses were not such that she was biased or prejudiced against [Dellinger].’
“In past cases, this Court has determined that ‘”[a]ctual bias can be shown either by a juror’s own admission of bias or by proof of specific facts which show the juror has such prejudice or connection with the parties at trial that bias is presumed.” We are particularly mindful that “[t]he process of identifying bias or prejudice, except in clear cases, can be a delicate one where the conclusion is finally drawn from the totality of the responses.”‘
“In the case sub judice, the totality of [Amber's] responses during the [juror misconduct hearing], coupled with her repeated silence during voir dire, leads this Court to conclude that she had such connection with [Dellinger] and witnesses … that bias must be presumed,” the court said. (West Virginia v. Dellinger)
— Pat Murphy
