Opinion ID: 2157073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facts Relating to the Claim of Juror Intimidation

Text: At the beginning of the second day of trial, the judge informed both counsel that Juror 988 (sitting in seat 5) had called his chambers the previous evening because he was troubled by some comments he had overheard. The judge, who had declined to speak to the juror when he called, had Juror 988 brought to the bench to say whatever he had to say in the presence of both attorneys. The juror stated that another juror had told the courtroom clerk, in a voice loud enough for other jurors to hear, that she had previously served in a murder trial and that after the trial began someone connected with the defendant... showed up at her front door, and she complained to the court about it, and the court, according to her, had not done anything about it. She seemed pretty agitated to me, and she asked the clerk what were we doing now. Juror 988 added that everybody else is talking about what the other juror had said, and that some jurors were discussing whether they should even eat lunch in the courthouse cafeteria. Juror 988 said that he was not affected by the first juror's comments but was concerned about his fellow jurors' state of mind. The judge offered to advise the remaining jurors that in all his years on the bench he had never heard of jurors being harassed, and then to ask if the overheard comments of the juror to the clerk would make it difficult for them to fairly decide the case. The prosecutor noted that recently we have been experiencing some juror intimidation, but said that she had no objection to the judge's proposal. Defense counsel, however, did object and moved that the entire jury be dismissed because of the specter of jury intimidation, and that a mistrial be declared and a new jury chosen. Without granting counsel's request, [10] the judge said that the specter of juror fear in a murder case... is going to be there whether it's articulated or not. He then advised the jury as proposed and individually questioned each juror. Twelve jurors responded that apprehensions about their safety would not interfere with their ability to decide the case fairly. Two jurors, however, did express some concern. Juror 275 (in seat 11) stated that she felt anxious about her own safety and that of her family and was not sure if her anxiety would affect her decision. Juror 700 (in seat 9), the juror who had initially raised the issue of intimidation with the clerk the day before, said she did not want her address made available to the defense but recognized that her prior experience was irrelevant to this case. The court assured the juror that her address, as well as the addresses of any of the other jurors, would not be released. In response to defense counsel's question, Anything that happened in that previous case, you wouldn't hold against my client?, Juror 700 said, No. At the end of the questioning, the judge dismissed Juror 275 and made Juror 700 an alternate. On the following Monday, Juror 293 (in seat 6) informed the court that the previous Saturday night she had received at her home two collect calls from D.C. Jail and that she was concerned. Appellant Parker said he knew nothing about the incident. When the judge questioned the juror, she said that the calls  which she did not accept  disturbed her, but she did not believe they were connected with Parker. The judge instructed her not to discuss the calls with the other jurors but did not dismiss her, finding that she's given every answer that indicates that she can be fair. The next day, however, after the jury had been instructed, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the problems with the juror we had in seat No. 6. In the alternative, counsel asked that Juror 293 be designated an alternate and that Juror 700 be redesignated a regular deliberating juror. Both requests were denied.