The case was a drug trafficking prosecution. One of the State's witnesses was the defendant's brother. While the witness was testifying against his brother, he recognized that he and his brother had attended high school with one of the jurors. The witness informed the court of this, and also told the court that the juror had been to his house, considered the the juror to be a friend of both the witness and the Defendant, and that in the 1990s he had sold marijuana and cocaine to the juror. The witness had even smoked marijuana with the juror in the 1990s.
After this was revealed, the State informed the court that the witness had made "extreme eye contact" with the Defendant's family, but had looked away when the State looked at the witness.
The juror, question about all of this, admitted without hesitation that he knew the witness and the Defendant. He claimed that he could be fair, and denied buying or using drugs.
The State moved for removal of the juror. The Defendant opposed this. The court ruled that the juror could not serve, but for some reason did not actually remove the juror until the panel was sent to deliberate. An alternate replaced the stricken juror.
The Defendant appealed, arguing that the State had not been adequately diligent, since it had not ask specific enough questions during voir dire.
The majority held found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling the situation. But Judge Wallace dissented. There are 42 pages between the majority and dissenting opinions. They are worth the read.
No comments:
Post a Comment