Opinion ID: 1536799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Replacement of Juror 8

Text: The trial judge empaneled fourteen jurorstwelve regular jurors and two alternate jurors. [7] The jurors in seats 5 and 12 were designated as the alternates, but the panel was not informed who the alternates would be. Before the trial began, the judge instructed the panel that its members would be permitted to propose additional questions to be put to the witnesses after counsel had finished with their examinations if there's any information that you think you need to help you decide this case. [8] The panel members took advantage of this opportunity by propounding numerous questions throughout the trial. One member, the juror in seat 8, eventually would be removed as a regular juror because of the questions he asked. Juror 8 initially drew attention to himself on the morning of the second day of trial. Upon arriving at court that morning, the judge looked into the jury room to check on the coffee, and a jurorlater identified by the judge as Juror 8asked to speak with her about something unrelated to the case. He then asked the judge what would constitute a split and whether the jury would have to agree in this case. The judge responded that she could not speak privately with the juror about those questions. The judge promptly informed the parties of this brief contact. No one attached particular significance to the incident. When the panel returned to the courtroom, the judge cautioned the jurors that she could not speak with them individually about the case. She promised to address the subject of juror agreement in her final instructions and reminded the jurors to refrain from discussing the case until they were instructed to deliberate. Following these instructions, Juror 8 did not attempt any further ex parte communication with the judge. Subsequently, in the course of the trial, Juror 8 submitted nine questions to be put to the witnesses. Because the juror's handwriting was poor, the judge asked him to rewrite several of his questions so they would be legible. At one point the judge had to admonish Juror 8 not to address the witness directly. The juror's questionsthe spontaneous inquiries of a layperson, not a lawyerwere not all models of clarity and precision. But the questions could be discerned, most of them were asked without objection, and the witnesses usually did not have trouble understanding them. Six of Juror 8's questions focused on the primary issue in disputethe asserted linkage between Hinton and the black jacket in which the police said they had found PCP. He asked an arresting officer, How do I know [the] jacket belongs to [the] defendant and was not borrowed? The juror's other questions in this area zeroed in on the curious absence of the jacket from the photographs of Hinton taken on the scene. He pressed the officers on timing, asking one, for instance, Where [sic] you present on scene when photo was taken? Or had photo already been taken before you arrived on scene? [9] If Hinton's photo had been taken after the marijuana blunt was discovered but before the PCP was found, the jacket arguably should have been visible in the photographs if Hinton actually was wearing it. Other questions concerned the physical location of the jacket: Were the sleeves taken down to wrists or elbows[?] and [w]as packet removed from pulled down jacket or from garment still [on] body of defendant? These questions directly addressed the police explanation that the jacket could not be seen in the photos because it had been pulled down. In addition to these questions, Juror 8 asked defense witness Davis (Hinton's fellow passenger) if he had touched Hinton on the shoulder when he got out of the carperhaps seeking to learn whether Davis had a particular reason to remember whether Hinton was wearing a jacket, or if Davis had felt the suspicious lump described by the police officer who searched Hinton. Finally, Juror 8 posed two questions about the drug-testing process: What is the reason for two marijuana tests? (i.e., the field test and the subsequent DEA lab test), and The two tests are at the scene and the lab[?] On the fourth day of trial, the prosecutor told the judge that he had increasing concerns about Juror 8's ability to communicate [and] effectively deliberate with other jurors. The judge commented that the juror had been asking really off the wall questions that would indicate that person has difficulty following the evidence in this case. She noted that she had observed pained looks on other jurors' faces when Juror 8 submitted a question, and she expressed doubt about his level of intelligence. Hinton's counsel voiced his disagreement, defended Juror 8's questions as relevant and insightful, and objected to his removal from the jury. The judge took no action at that time. The following day, however, the judge reopened the discussion about Juror 8. Hinton's counsel again objected to his removal, asserting that his questions had been very insightful and that no showing had been made that would justify excusing him. Counsel contended that [j]ust because some of his questions are leaning toward favoring the defense doesn't necessarily mean the government has a right to excuse this particular juror, and that removing him would be denying [Hinton] the right to have a fair trial by a jury of his peers. The judge responded that she had carefully reviewed Juror 8's questions and did not read them as favoring the defense, but rather as being strange and bizarre and difficult to comprehend or answer. Reiterating that she had observed at least three other jurors wince, put their hands over their faces and look exasperated with Juror 8, the judge said her concern is that he's a strange person and that he won't be able to deliberate fairly because of his strangeness. Hinton's counsel rejoined that [j]ust because a person seems to be strange doesn't give the court ... reason to strike [him]. The prosecutor interjected that Juror 8's inability to communicate would affect his ability to deliberate. Hinton's counsel disputed this conclusion, insisting that the juror had communicated quite well, and that merely because he doesn't write well or he doesn't seem to express his opinion on the paper doesn't mean that he cannot express it verbally. Overruling Hinton's objection, the judge concluded that Juror 8's questions revealed the extent to which he would have difficulty serving in deliberation and demonstrate[d] that this is a hung jury waiting to happen because ... he doesn't think along the wavelength of normal functioning people in my view. [10] Accordingly, and without further inquiry of the juror, the judge removed Juror 8 from the jury and replaced him with one of the alternate jurors. [11]