Opinion ID: 766923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prejudicial Juror Statement

Text: 44 Semenov, Ivanchikov, and Mikayelyan all argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for a mistrial because the jury was tainted by Juror Angela Yerkes's prejudicial statement against gypsies. Alternatively, they argue that a mistrial should have been ordered because Juror Yerkes thought that she had received a threat in connection with the case, and had expressed that view to the other jurors.
45 On February 23, 1998, Juror Angela Yerkes stated that she had a problem. In a meeting in chambers, Yerkes explained that over the past weekend some unknown person had called the police and told them that Yerkes's son had killed her. Yerkes was apparently very upset over the incident. The district court then questioned Yerkes to better understand what had happened. The following exchange then occurred: 46 Yerkes: When you first asked the questions do you have any problem with serving on this jury I didn't understand or didn't know what the case was. In our business that I worked for for many years we do not allow gypsies into our business because they wreak havoc and whatnot. 47