US v. Johnson: Johnson and his codefendant were on trial for
numerous charges related to their alleged membership in a “violent street and
prison gang in Baltimore.” Among the charges were those related to the
intimidation and murder of witnesses. During trial a juror told a court
security officer (in front of the other juror) that some of “the defendants’
associates” had tried to take pictures of jurors as they stepped out into the
hallway. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for a mistrial,
utilizing court staff to perform a brief investigation, but without holding a
hearing where any of the jurors were questioned under oath. The mistrial was denied (although the initial
reporting juror was dismissed), the defendants convicted, and sentences of life
imposed on both.
On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit vacated
the district court’s judgment (although not the verdicts) and remanded with
orders to the district court to hold a hearing on the matter of jury interference.
The court concluded that the single juror’s report of possibly being
photographed was sufficient to trigger the district court’s obligation to hold a
hearing under Remmer and that the
district court’s outsourcing of its investigation to court staff was not
appropriate. Furthermore, the court noted that the most important issue was how
the conduct impacted the jury (at least the initial juror who made the report,
if not the rest of the jury), not whether the reported conduct was accurately described.
In other words, whether the photo taking actually took place was irrelevant
compared to whether the juror thought she was being targeted.
Judge Motz dissented, arguing that the
reported conduct was “what we ordinarily would consider innocuous,” noting that
none of the other jurors “interpreted their actions as photographing or
attempting to photograph the jury.”
No comments:
Post a Comment