Opinion ID: 2391925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Forelady's Theft Conviction

Text: With regard to the embezzlement claim, the record reflects that eleven days prior to the beginning of the trial in Banther's case, Smith was called into the office of the hotel where she was employed. She was confronted by her regional manager and Officer Rachko of the Dover Police Department. The regional manager alleged that none of the daily bank deposits  that were Smith's responsibility to make on behalf of the hotel  had been made. The manager accused Smith of stealing approximately $30,000 to fund her gambling and cocaine addiction. Officer Rachko questioned Smith at length and told her that he would be investigating the charges. Officer Rachko also told her that he would be in contact with her regarding these allegations in the future. During the course of Banther's trial, Officer Rachko did contact Smith. He left three messages on her answering machine asking her to call him with regard to the investigation. She eventually returned his call by leaving a message on his voice mail and telling him I'm sorry, I haven't gotten back with you, Officer Rachko. I'm the Foreperson for a jury in a murder trial that's going on now. We are going on for a sentencing hearing. Officer Rachko obtained an arrest warrant on November 20, 1998, about two weeks after the end of Banther's trial. He arrested Smith on December 7, 1998. On April 12, 1999, she pled guilty to the lesser charges of two counts of Misdemeanor theft in the amount of $8,000 before the same judge who had presided over Banther's trial. The trial judge had no knowledge of these facts until Smith appeared before him, five months after Banther's trial was over, and pleaded guilty to the charges of theft. There are no indications that during the course of the trial Officer Rachko knew Smith was serving as a juror on a capital murder case other than the voice mail Smith left him with that information. There is also no indication that that he informed the prosecutors that Smith was under investigation or that they knew she had been until long after the trial was over. Banther asserts that, given the circumstances of the ongoing criminal investigation for embezzlement, Smith could not honestly have thought that she would be without bias or prejudice either for or against the State or that she would be able to give this case her undivided attention. Banther submits that had Smith answered either of the two questions in the preliminary voir dire honestly, she would have been challenged for cause by counsel for either Banther or the State. Nevertheless, the Superior Court concluded that there was no evidence that the ongoing investigation of Smith for embezzlement during the course of Banther's trial had any effect on Smith's participation as a juror. The Juror Qualification Questionnaire for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asks are any charges pending against you for a violation of state or federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than one year? In Maryland, a prospective juror is disqualified from serving if he or she has a charge pending against him for a crime punishable by a fine of more than $500 or by imprisonment for more than six months or both. [9] The Superior Court should expand its standard questionnaire and voir dire to include this area of inquiry.