Opinion ID: 1654062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Counsel failed to move to quash the jury based on improper contact with the State.

Text: A) Jury members were taken on a tour of the Greene County Jail where Davis was held the week before trial and discussed Davis's case with guards. B) Jury members mingled with Assistant District Attorney Daryl Dryden the week prior to trial. ¶ 30. This issue is considered in conjunction with Issue I(13). Davis alleges that Shaddock should have moved to quash the jury based on improper contact between prospective jurors and the District Attorney's Office and the guards at the county jail. Davis argues first that his cellmate in the county jail was one Doug Keel. Davis further alleges that Keel's wife witnessed the jury pool which was used for Davis's trial take a tour of the county jail the week before. According to Davis's brief, Mrs. Keel saw potential jurors discuss Davis's case with a dispatcher at the jail. Davis further alleges that he notified Shaddock as to this allegation. Apparently Shaddock never attempted to make a record on this allegation during voir dire. There is no affidavit from either of the Keels supporting this allegation. Davis admits that he has been unable to locate the Keels since the trial. There is an affidavit from one Belinda Davis, who states that she spoke with Mrs. Keel and Mrs. Keel told her the same story. ¶ 31. Davis also alleges in his affidavit that he saw an assistant district attorney talking and smoking with some people. Two of these people, both young men, ended up as jurors on my case. I told my attorney about all of this and thought he notified the Court of the problem by requesting a special venire. It does appear that Shaddock made an attempt to bring this to the trial court's attention once he discovered a special venire had not been drawn. The trial court denied the motion for special venire, and Shaddock failed to make a record on this issue. ¶ 32. Both actions, if they occurred, would have amounted to a violation of then Uniform Criminal Rule 8.01. The alleged violations must then be viewed in conjunction with the failure of trial counsel to request a special venire, discussed under I(13). We find that Davis should be granted leave to proceed in the trial court on this issue.