LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a death row inmate's murder conviction and said he deserves a new trial because one juror slept and another tweeted during court proceedings.
Erickson Dimas-Martinez's attorneys had appealed his 2010 murder conviction because a juror sent tweets despite the judge's instruction not to post on the Internet or communicate with anyone about the case. The lawyers also complained that another juror slept.
In one tweet, juror Randy Franco wrote: "Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken...We each define the great line." Less than an hour before the jury announced its verdict, he tweeted: "It's over."
Other tweets by Franco made passing references to the trial, with posts such as, "the coffee sucks here" and "Court. Day 5. Here we go again."
The court said Franco, known as Juror 2 in court documents, violated general instructions to not discuss the case. Before opening arguments, the judge said: "Just remember, never discuss this case over your cell phone. .... and don't Twitter anybody about this case."
Franco didn't immediately return a message left Thursday, but he has defended his tweets in the past.
"None of my texts indicated anything about the trial," he told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette last year. "I hadn't made up my mind."
That explanation seemed to satisfy a lower court judge, but it didn't sit well with the state's highest court.
"Because of the very nature of Twitter as an ... online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions. Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts, or other information about a case in such a public fashion," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote.
The justices also used the case to point out that a wide array of juror misconduct can come into play when jurors have unrestricted access to their cell phones during a trial.
"Most mobile phones now allow instant access to a myriad of information. Not only can jurors access Facebook, Twitter, or other social media sites, but they can also access news sites that might have information about a case," Corbin wrote.
He also asked a panel to consider whether to limit jurors' access to cell phones during trials.
Janice Vaughn, who argued Dimas-Martinez's case in front of the state Supreme Court last month, said the case will likely bring about new rules governing jurors' cell phone usage.
Vaughn said both examples of juror misconduct — the tweeting and the sleeping — were such profound errors that "it had to be overturned."
An assistant attorney general had argued that the tweets were merely about the juror's feelings and not about specifics of the trial.
Courts in Arkansas and around the country are grappling with problems caused by jurors using Twitter, Facebook or other online services during trials. In 2009, a Washington County judge dismissed an attempt to overturn a $12.6 million judgment against a building materials company, despite the firm's complaint that a juror's Twitter posts showed bias.
Dimas-Martinez, now 26, was sent to death row for robbing and shooting a teenager after a party in northwest Arkansas in 2006. Prosecutors said Dimas-Martinez held 17-year-old Derrick Jefferson at gunpoint and demanded his money before he shot him.
Source: AP, December 8, 2011
Death Sentence Overturned On Juror Misconduct
A juror's failure to honestly answer questions during the jury selection process has resulted in a death sentence being reversed and a need for new sentencing trial.
December 08, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ -- The death-penalty sentence for Gary Sampson, as a result of convictions for multiple murders in 2001, has been reversed and a new sentencing trial has been ordered because a juror lied when answering a jury form.
A Mere Technicality?
The juror, identified only as "C," failed to truthfully answer several questions on a jury questionnaire. During the jury selection process, she failed to disclose that she had been the victim of domestic violence and that her husband had in fact threatened her with a rifle. The juror failed to reveal many circumstances and experiences that would otherwise have disqualified her participation as a juror in the trial.
Judge Mark Wolf was clearly pained by the need to grant a new trial. In his decision, he wrote, "In essence, despite dedicated efforts by the parties and the court to assure that the trial would be fair and the verdict final, it has now been proven that perjury by a juror resulted in a violation of Sampson's constitutional right to have the issue of whether he should live or die decided by twelve women and men who were each capable of deciding that most consequential question impartially."
Some may dismiss this issue as a mere technically. After all, Sampson pled guilty and he clearly murdered three men, so who cares if a juror lied about having been subjected to domestic violence?
When the State initiates the process to execute a person, however, the trial is as much about protecting due process as it is about getting the conviction. Due process should never be dismissed as a mere technicality. It is all that stands between a legal execution and a murder. A judge's duty is to ensure the integrity of the judicial system. When cases involve a potential death sentence, that duty obviously must be heightened.
"Death is Different"
As the Supreme Court has noted, because of the irrevocability of the sentence once it has been carried out, the level of due process a defendant receives needs to be heightened in order to minimize the likelihood of a tragic mistake.
A trial court needs to be scrupulous in maintaining the integrity of the entire process. In this case, Judge Mark Wolf, in a 37-page opinion, painstakingly examined the specific questions put to the offending juror and how true answers could have affected the parties' views of her impartiality.
The judge describes how the juror lied about and concealed information regarding many topics. She did not reveal that her husband had threatened her with a gun. She kept secret the fact that that she feared for her life and obtained a court order for protection from him. She did not disclose that she had witnessed his arrest for violating the order. She failed to reveal that he was a drug user and that his drug use had destroyed her marriage. She did not disclose that her daughter also had a drug problem, had been arrested and had served time in prison.
None of this information came out during jury selection because C was too embarrassed to reveal any of it. This information only became known during three post-trial hearings, at which, Judge Wolf notes, "She often cried when required to think about these matters. She was frequently unable to discuss them candidly or coherently."
She also "repeatedly characterized each of those experiences as 'horrible' and a 'nightmare'."
But Did Her Lies Affect Her Ability To Decide The Issues Impartially?
The U.S. Supreme Court has a rather elaborate set of rules for a court to follow when problems with the veracity of a juror develop. In the case of McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), the Supreme Court outlined a series of questions a judge should use to examine alleged juror misconduct.
The core issue is whether the juror's lies demonstrate her inability to view the case impartially. The juror's impartiality goes to the fundamental question of the fairness of the trial itself.
Source: DigitalJournal, December 8, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment