Opinion ID: 1863727
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: litigation facts

Text: ś 15. Nathaniel Lindell was charged with homicide and other crimes on March 5, 1997. The circuit court conducted numerous motion hearings in the case throughout the latter half of 1997 and January 1998. ś 16. Harmacek's murder received significant news media attention in the La Crosse area. In fact, months before trial, the parties and the circuit court were concerned with issues relating to media publicity and the future venire, particularly when Joshua Lindell pleaded guilty, and the parties had a dispute over the extent of media coverage about the case and Joshua Lindell's guilty plea. Nathaniel Lindell moved the circuit court to issue a protective order to prevent discussion of the case with members of the news media, but the circuit court denied the motion. ś 17. In addition, when a mental examination was done to assess Nathaniel Lindell's competency, the media requested access to the report and it became the subject of two motions by the defendant. In both instances, the circuit court declined to keep the report under seal. ś 18. Nathaniel Lindell also moved the circuit court to allow individual voir dire of prospective jurors and to mail prospective jurors a lengthy questionnaire before they arrived for jury service. Both of these motions related to the defendant's concerns over pretrial publicity. The circuit court allowed individual voir dire, but it apparently did not approve any of the questionnaires that the defendant proffered to the court. ś 19. The motions noted above were made in the last half of 1997. In January 1998, just weeks before trial, the defendant moved the circuit court for change of venue because an impartial trial [could] not be had in La Crosse County. Counsel for Lindell argued that a fair trial could not take place in the county because of the nature and the amount, the overwhelming amount, of pretrial publicity. The circuit court denied this motion. ś 20. On the morning of January 26, 1998, jury selection began in the State's case against Nathaniel Lindell. District Attorney Scott Horne represented the State and Assistant State Public Defenders Christine Clair and Keith Belzer represented the defendant. The circuit court noted that it would begin with a venire of 50 prospective jurors but that initially only 28 would be brought into the courtroom. ś 21. The clerk called the first 28 prospective jurors. Prospective juror D.F. was not among these 28. She became, however, the 30th prospective juror called when the circuit court excused several of the first 28 candidates for lack of availability and called in 4 additional prospective jurors. ś 22. The circuit court asked whether anyone in the venire had heard of the facts of the case. So many people raised their hand in response to this inquiry that the circuit court decided to ask who had not heard about the case. The court then asked the venire whether anyone had decided about the guilt or innocence of those accused in the case. The circuit court excused one juror who had already made a decision as to the guilt of those accused. The court also engaged in colloquies with a number of other prospective jurors who indicated they might have an opinion about the guilt or innocence of Nathaniel Lindell, but the court did not excuse any more prospective jurors once the court made a determination that each person could be impartial. D.F. did not indicate that she had already made up her mind about the guilt or innocence of the accused. ś 23. The circuit court then allowed the parties to read their witness lists to the venire to examine the extent of any relationships between the venire and witnesses, attorneys, and the defendant. When the State read the name of Shirley Otto, a long-time companion of Harmacek, D.F. indicated that she knew Otto. The following exchange then occurred between the circuit judge and D.F.: The Court: Miss [F.], how do you know Shirley? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: I've known Shirley and Donny for about twenty years. Our place of business, Donny was our Pabst distributor. The Court: Okay. Was the relationship such that you would have difficulty â Prospective Juror [D.F.]: No. The Court: Okay. Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Close friends, just friends, you know, over the years. The Court: Okay. Can you judge the credibility of her the same way you judge the credibility of any other witnesses? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Yeah. The State proceeded to read the names of more of its potential witnesses aloud. After further questioning of the venire by the attorneys, the circuit court asked: The alleged victim in this case is Mr. Donald Harmacek. Is anyone acquainted with, related to by blood or marriage, or had any business dealings with Mr. Harmacek? The transcript of the voir dire does not indicate that D.F. or any prospective juror raised a hand in response to this question. ś 24. The circuit court then moved on to questioning the venire about their criminal histories, among other things. The court dismissed one juror for cause because she was being prosecuted by the district attorney's office. ś 25. The jury selection began at about 9:20 a.m. and at around 10:45 a.m. the circuit court gave the venire a break. Out of the presence of the jury, the first words on the record went as follows: Ms. Clair: I'm going to ask that Miss [F.], who knows both Mr. Harmacek and Miss Otto, be struck for cause. It's not that she just knows him casually, this was a business acquaintance. And because she knows both of them â she said that she didn't think it would bother her. I just, you know, somebody that got murdered, and you know that person's girlfriend, you're going to have an emotional, feeling about that, and I think it's very difficult. And if I ask more specific questions about it, and then she gets struck, it's like I'm trying not to â I don't want somebody that knows him. The Court: She has assured us she can fairly and impartially judge this case. As long as she makes that assurance, I don't think I can strike her for cause. You can ask her some questions and we'll play it by ear, but I won't strike her at this time. Ms. Clair: If after I ask her some questions â I don't want to ask you directly when I'm asking, because I don't want it â The Court: You can ask then, or I will strike her on my own if, in fact, I find that that's necessary. The parties and the court recessed at this point. ś 26. When the voir dire continued after the recess, the circuit court dismissed a number of prospective jurors for cause: two people because they had strong feelings about the general credibility of witnesses who testify pursuant to an immunity agreement; one man because he had strong feelings about the incident in the case, which occurred in his neighborhood; one woman because she felt she could not be fair to the defendant because she treated crime victims in her work as a nurse. ś 27. Counsel for the defendant, Clair, questioned jurors after the State had asked many questions. When Clair came to prospective juror D.F., the following exchange occurred: Ms. Clair: Okay. Now, you had stated before that you knew Mr. Harmacek and you know Miss Otto. Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Um-hum. Ms. Clair: Was that from working at [a local store] or previous employment? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: The previous. My parents used to own and operate [a La Crosse bar/restaurant], and Donny was our distributor. Ms. Clair: Okay. How much contact did you have with either him or Miss Otto? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: None really with Shirley other than knowing her. Donny, you know, when he made our deliveries three times a week. Ms. Clair: Other than when he would make deliveries, did you ever socialize with him or did your family? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: My parents knew him real well. Ms. Clair: Your parents did? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Yeah. Ms. Clair: Did you and your family talk of â about what had happened after, after his death? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Yes. Ms. Clair: And how was that? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Hard. We knew Donny for quite a few years. Ms. Clair: Was it very difficult on your parents? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Yeah. I had the loss of my dad the year before this happened to Donny, so prior to that. It was hard, yes. Ms. Clair: Okay. Knowing that you had known him, and that your parents knew him even more so, and that he was the victim on the charges in this case, how does that make you feel right now sitting on this jury? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Okay. I think I could â I think I could go along with it and make my, you know, decision. Ms. Clair: Do you think that you could listen to the evidence and look at the case without being â having an emotional reaction because of your relationship and your family's relationship with him? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Yes, because I worked part-time for my parents other than working at [a local store]. So I wasn't [sic] on a daily basis. I mean he'd come in for breakfast every morning, but I wasn't there every day. I worked like â I went to school and worked afternoons, so I would meet him like when he would bring the deliveries that afternoon. But as far as an everyday basis, no, I didn't deal with Donny every day. Ms. Clair: So do you think that if you were chosen to be on the jury, you would be able to listen to all the evidence and make a fair determination? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Yes, I think I could. Ms. Clair: Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Counsel for the defendant went on to ask many questions of the venire and counsel for the State followed up with additional questions. ś 28. Individual voir dire of the prospective jurors then began in the nearby jury room. When D.F. entered the jury room for individual voir dire, defense counsel Belzer questioned her: Mr. Belzer: Obviously you have told us previously that you knew something about this case before getting here today? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Um-hum. Mr. Belzer: Had you also seen information in the newspaper or television? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Just other than what we've been reading in the paper and the TV has had prior to, you know, when this happened. Mr. Belzer: Do you receive the daily newspaper? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Um-hum. Mr. Belzer: You have read all the articles about the case? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Um-hum. Well, I can't say all of them. When I get time to read the paper, I do, yeah. Mr. Belzer: What do you recall hearing about Mr. Lindell, about Nathan Lindell? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Well, just what had happened that night. I mean Donny, Donny lived like about six blocks from us â Mr. Belzer: Um-hum. Prospective Juror [D.F.]: â in the neighborhood. ...So other than what had happened that evening, other than what I've read in the paper, that's, you know. Mr. Belzer: Okay. Do you remember specific things from the paper about Nathan? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: No. Huh-uh. Mr. Belzer: Okay. Prospective Juror [D.F.]: Not pinpoint anything, you know. Mr. Belzer: You have discussed this case based on media reports with your family I assume? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: My mom. I live with my mom since I lost my dad, yes. Mr. Belzer: Sure. Prospective Juror [D.F.]: So we've talked about it, yeah. We've known Donny. He was our beer driver for 47 years my parents were in business, so â Mr. Belzer: When you discussed it with your mom, did either of you offer an opinion about whether you thought â Prospective Juror [D.F.]: No. Mr. Belzer: â anybody was guilty in the case? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: No, huh-uh. Mr. Belzer: Okay. Have you discussed the case with Ms. Otto at all? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: No. We run [sic] into her a couple weeks ago on the elevator, and that's the first we'd seen her since this happened other than the funeral home that night. Mr. Belzer: Earlier when you were answering questions, clearly you were very emotional, and it seemed like you were about to start crying. Are you sure you feel okay about sitting on this jury? Prospective Juror [D.F.]: I feel very confident. Like I say, I knew him, but as far as personal, I think my parents knew him more personal than I did. Mr. Belzer: Okay. Thank you. ś 29. After the attorneys had questioned all the prospective jurors individually, the circuit court judge asked the parties if they were [r]eady for strikes. Belzer immediately renewed Lindell's request that D.F. be removed from the venire for cause. He noted that during the initial questioning of D.F. earlier in the day, D.F. had to stop talking because she was going to cry. He also stressed D.F.'s familiarity with Harmacek, a man D.F. repeatedly referred to as Donny. The circuit court judge replied that he did not notice D.F. looking like she was ready to cry, that D.F.'s relationship with Harmacek was minimal, and that D.F. had repeatedly maintained she could be impartial. Thus, the circuit court denied the defendant's request to strike D.F. for cause. ś 30. The defendant struck D.F. from the panel with his first peremptory challenge and therefore D.F. did not sit on the jury. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of homicide, arson, and burglary. The circuit court judge sentenced Nathaniel Lindell to prison on all three sentences, most important of which was the sentence on the first-degree intentional homicide conviction: life in prison with parole eligibility after 50 years.