Jury Misconduct - Motion
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Jury Misconduct - Motion as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 889
- Pages: 3
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M
Document 1044
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. SHEILA D. FARRINGTON (03) a/k/a “Sheila Hill,” et al. Defendant.
§ § § § § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. § § 3:07-CR-289-M § § §
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING Defendant Sheila Hill files this motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing on the misconduct. In support, she states as follows: Juror statements have come to light which indicate that, during the trial, jurors were listening to comments from the public. In order to ensure that a fair trial was not compromised, Mrs. Hill requests that the Court declare a mistrial or, alternatively, conduct an evidentiary hearing and investigation into whether juror misconduct has occurred. I. After the verdict, the Dallas Observer interviewed juror Nedra Frazier, who commented that Don Hill’s testimony about “the fax machine” was particularly memorable, and that at the time, his testimony had been “the talk of the day.” See Dallas Observer “Unfair Park” Blog, “More Delicious Corruption Trial Leftovers: Juror Says ‘There Was a Lot of Disagreeing,” Fax Machine Was “the Talk of the Day,” pp. 4-5 (Oct. 19, 2009) (attached as Exhibit A). When the reporter pressed her on this statement a couple of days later, Ms. Frazier confirmed the influence of “outside people”: Reporter: [] You said it was the “talk of the day,” that other jurors felt the same way. DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING DAL01:1102481.1
Page 1
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M
Document 1044
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 2 of 3
Juror: Well, I think the public itself. Everybody just made a big deal out of it between the defendants and the prosecutors. Well, the prosecutors made a big deal out of it. I guess they took it and ran with it. It was like, “Wow, we got him.” Like I said, it really wasn’t an issue. Reporter: When you said it was the talk of the day, it gives the impression that you had been discussing it with the other jurors. . . . Juror: Oh, no. No. It was the outside people. I was talking about the public, not the jurors -- the people in the courtroom, the media, the prosecutors . . .When we went outside to take breaks or to go to lunch, people kind of elaborated on it. . . . Reporter: I guess that’s what I’m trying to get at -- how you were understanding it to be the talk of the day? Juror: Just hearing people in conversations. Id. at 11 (emphasis added). When faced with the import of these comments by the reporter, Frazier tried to backtrack from them. See id. Unfortunately it appears that outside sources influenced the jury (or, at least, Ms. Frazier). Additionally, an acquaintance of D’Angelo Lee reported to him that Ms. Frazier spoke with him about the case and gave opinions about the evidence. See Exhibit B (Declaration of D’Angelo Lee). Finally, the Court also discovered a newspaper in the jury room that contained an article about the trial. While Mrs. Hill did not object to continuing the trial at the time, in light of the other evidence recently discovered, this is another fact that warrants further investigation. II. “The insinuation of outside influences is inimical to the premises upon which our system of justice rests. As Justice Holmes wrote, ‘The theory of our system is that the conclusion to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.’” United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING DAL01:1102481.1
Page 2
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M
Document 1044
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 3 of 3
974, 978 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907)). Therefore, a “presumption of prejudice” will arise when potential outside influence is brought to the attention of the trial court, and “the failure of the trial judge to hold a hearing constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 279. III. Accordingly, because of the potential outside influence discussed in this motion, Mrs. Hill requests that the court declare a mistrial or, alternatively, that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine whether and to what extent misconduct occurred.1
October 28, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Victor D. Vital Victor D. Vital State Bar No. 00794798 Jon Mureen State Bar No. 24060313 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201-2980 Telephone: (214) 953-6500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on October 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document and all parties of records were served view the court’s ECF system.
/s/ Victor Vital Victor Vital 1
The jurors may be put under oath and questioned at this hearing. See Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (providing that jurors may testify in post-verdict evidentiary hearing concerning “whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror”). DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING DAL01:1102481.1
Page 3
Document 1044
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. SHEILA D. FARRINGTON (03) a/k/a “Sheila Hill,” et al. Defendant.
§ § § § § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. § § 3:07-CR-289-M § § §
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING Defendant Sheila Hill files this motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing on the misconduct. In support, she states as follows: Juror statements have come to light which indicate that, during the trial, jurors were listening to comments from the public. In order to ensure that a fair trial was not compromised, Mrs. Hill requests that the Court declare a mistrial or, alternatively, conduct an evidentiary hearing and investigation into whether juror misconduct has occurred. I. After the verdict, the Dallas Observer interviewed juror Nedra Frazier, who commented that Don Hill’s testimony about “the fax machine” was particularly memorable, and that at the time, his testimony had been “the talk of the day.” See Dallas Observer “Unfair Park” Blog, “More Delicious Corruption Trial Leftovers: Juror Says ‘There Was a Lot of Disagreeing,” Fax Machine Was “the Talk of the Day,” pp. 4-5 (Oct. 19, 2009) (attached as Exhibit A). When the reporter pressed her on this statement a couple of days later, Ms. Frazier confirmed the influence of “outside people”: Reporter: [] You said it was the “talk of the day,” that other jurors felt the same way. DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING DAL01:1102481.1
Page 1
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M
Document 1044
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 2 of 3
Juror: Well, I think the public itself. Everybody just made a big deal out of it between the defendants and the prosecutors. Well, the prosecutors made a big deal out of it. I guess they took it and ran with it. It was like, “Wow, we got him.” Like I said, it really wasn’t an issue. Reporter: When you said it was the talk of the day, it gives the impression that you had been discussing it with the other jurors. . . . Juror: Oh, no. No. It was the outside people. I was talking about the public, not the jurors -- the people in the courtroom, the media, the prosecutors . . .When we went outside to take breaks or to go to lunch, people kind of elaborated on it. . . . Reporter: I guess that’s what I’m trying to get at -- how you were understanding it to be the talk of the day? Juror: Just hearing people in conversations. Id. at 11 (emphasis added). When faced with the import of these comments by the reporter, Frazier tried to backtrack from them. See id. Unfortunately it appears that outside sources influenced the jury (or, at least, Ms. Frazier). Additionally, an acquaintance of D’Angelo Lee reported to him that Ms. Frazier spoke with him about the case and gave opinions about the evidence. See Exhibit B (Declaration of D’Angelo Lee). Finally, the Court also discovered a newspaper in the jury room that contained an article about the trial. While Mrs. Hill did not object to continuing the trial at the time, in light of the other evidence recently discovered, this is another fact that warrants further investigation. II. “The insinuation of outside influences is inimical to the premises upon which our system of justice rests. As Justice Holmes wrote, ‘The theory of our system is that the conclusion to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.’” United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING DAL01:1102481.1
Page 2
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M
Document 1044
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 3 of 3
974, 978 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907)). Therefore, a “presumption of prejudice” will arise when potential outside influence is brought to the attention of the trial court, and “the failure of the trial judge to hold a hearing constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 279. III. Accordingly, because of the potential outside influence discussed in this motion, Mrs. Hill requests that the court declare a mistrial or, alternatively, that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine whether and to what extent misconduct occurred.1
October 28, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Victor D. Vital Victor D. Vital State Bar No. 00794798 Jon Mureen State Bar No. 24060313 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201-2980 Telephone: (214) 953-6500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on October 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document and all parties of records were served view the court’s ECF system.
/s/ Victor Vital Victor Vital 1
The jurors may be put under oath and questioned at this hearing. See Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (providing that jurors may testify in post-verdict evidentiary hearing concerning “whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror”). DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING DAL01:1102481.1
Page 3
Related Documents
Jury Misconduct - Motion
June 2020 4
Jury Misconduct - Observer Article
June 2020 6
Jury Misconduct - Lee Declaration
June 2020 0
Jury Misconduct Order
June 2020 3
