Opinion ID: 2810546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Witness Threats

Text: Three jurors recalled some variation of a discussion among jurors during trial that witnesses felt threatened by Welch or his supporters. However, the referee found ―no evidence that the bailiff was the source of any information about threats.‖ To the extent that jurors held such beliefs, the referee attributed the beliefs to information obtained through legitimate means. Jurors heard Barbara Mabrey testify at trial that Welch had threatened her in an attempt to dissuade her from testifying against him regarding an earlier assault. Additionally, the prosecutor, James Anderson, spoke to jurors about safety concerns after the case‘s completion. The referee reasoned that Barbara Mabrey‘s testimony, coupled with the posttrial conversation with the prosecutor, explained the jurors‘ memories concerning witness threats. Welch takes exception to the referee‘s finding that no bailiff communicated that Welch threatened witnesses, but he does not provide evidence to the contrary. He points to Juror J.C., who testified that all of the jurors participated in 15 conversations regarding ―whether or not petitioner was capable of threatening the jurors because evidence at trial indicated he had actually made threats against witnesses.‖ But this testimony is not inconsistent with the referee‘s determination that the jurors perceived witness threats based on Barbara Mabrey‘s testimony and the prosecutor‘s posttrial statements. Moreover, as Welch concedes, J.C. could not remember the source of the information regarding witness threats.