Opinion ID: 2320064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Post-verdict comments to the jury in State v. McDaniels.

Text: In respect of Count One of the formal complaint, Judge Mathesius admitted that, on February 3, 2005, after the jury had returned a not guilty verdict in the matter styled State v. McDaniels, he made a series of inappropriate comments in the presence of or directly to the jury. Immediately after the jury acquitted the defendant and was polled, Judge Mathesius addressed the defendant as follows: THE COURT: Mr. McDaniels, I ask you to stand. You are, sir, a very, very, very lucky man. The evidence was very strong that you were guilty of this offense. I don't know what they [the jurors] were thinking, but they're thinking other than what I was thinking. You have a number of convictions and I'll tell you this: If you find yourself in trouble again, the resolution of the case [will be] other than the windfall you received today, do you understand how lucky you are, Mr. McDaniels? Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. . . . . THE COURT: But for the fact that something happened with the other defendant and he got scared and didn't testify, that may have changed the jury's verdict. Mr. Williams' testimony was one of the most credible witnesses this Court has ever seen. I'm going to tell you, you have a girlfriend out there, you better look in the mirror tonight when you go home and say I dodged five years in jail by some God unknown occurrence. 12 people listened to the testimony and somehow didn't believe not only the direct testimony, but the circumstantial evidence that you took the gun and shot it in the air, walked in front of Mr. Williams and walked out into the field and buried it or had Kafarr Logan bury it so that may be a change in your life, I hope it is, because if it's involved with gangs and drugs and any of the screwing around with guns or drugs or anything more, you're going to end up with your ass in jail. Do you understand? I don't want that to happen. Now I want you to look and thank God, get on your hands and knees tonight and thank God that this jury didn't see the forest for the trees. Do you understand what I'm saying to you, sir? [(emphasis supplied).] Judge Mathesius next excused the jurors, but nonetheless ordered them to remain in the jury room. Judge Mathesius then entered the jury room admittedly upset, and frustrated[.] Three of the jurors in McDaniels testified at the formal hearing. One juror explained that when the judge walked into the [jury] room, he walked in with a stride, like he had a purpose. Like he was there. He still had his robe on, he was there for a  to tell us. And you could tell that once he started talking, he expressed his  he expressed his frustration level to the [not guilty] verdict that we had given [the defendant]. . . . Q. What did he say? A. He asked us what the hell what we were thinking about. Asked to describe Judge Mathesius's tone while delivering his peroration to the jury, the juror described it as one of an underlying anger, but also of a frustration level. The juror explained that he did, in the end, apologize for his behavior[and that h]e expressed that he was more or less venting, and just saying that he was speaking out of frustration, that he was sorry. The juror contrasted Judge Mathesius's behavior in the jury room with what the juror had observed during the court proceedings: in the courtroom, it was understanding, it was authoritative in the sense that, you know, he was doing his job, in the manner in which he spoke. He clarified everything. When he came into the jury room, it was higher pitched, a little bit of anger in it, but also a frustration level, in which he did comment. The juror explained that she did not expect to be spoken to in the manner in which [she] was spoken to[,] and that it almost brought you back, like you were being screamed at, as a child, by your parents. Her view of Judge Mathesius's comments was stark: I don't allow people in my personal life to speak to me like that, I just don't allow it. The other two jurors who testified before the Advisory Committee echoed those sentiments. [1] Judge Mathesius did not cross-examine any of the jurors who testified at the formal hearing. The Advisory Committee concluded that Judge Mathesius's post-verdict remarks, both those from the bench and those made in the jury room, were not only critical of the jurors for their verdict but were also insulting and denigrating of those who had responded to a call to public service and who had performed that service. The Advisory Committee thus concluded that Judge Mathesius's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, and 3A(10) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and R. 2:15-8(a)(6).