Pr. George’s trial in fatal police chase tossed because of juror’s religious beliefs

[rug]

By Lynh Bui, Published: January 9

A Maryland judge declared a mistrial Thursday in the case of a man accused of causing the death of a 23-year-old Prince George’s County officer during a police chase, after a juror declared that she could not participate because of her religious beliefs.

The juror sent a note to the judge about 1 a.m. on the day deliberations were supposed to resume in the trial of Kevon Neal, 24, of Fort Washington. Neal is facing manslaughter and other charges in the death of Officer Adrian Morris, who was killed Aug. 20, 2012, when his cruiser crashed during the chase on Interstate 95 in Beltsville.

The note — which came well after deliberations were underway and after three days of testimony — said that the juror was a Jehovah’s Witness and that her religious beliefs did not allow her to “sit in judgment of another human being,” Prince George’s State’s Attorney Angela Alsobrooks said.

When asked to elaborate, the juror told Circuit Court Judge Michael R. Pearson that “she didn’t have a dog in this fight” and that she wasn’t sure whether there was enough evidence and she didn’t want to be involved, Alsobrooks said. The juror then said she didn’t alert the court sooner because she needed to “do research about her beliefs to discover what her beliefs are.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/pr-georges-trial-in-fatal-police-chase-tossed-because-of-jurors-religious-beliefs/2014/01/09/3e834ef4-7956-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

[hrmjustin]

1. Shame on her! She should have said something before the trial.

[rug]

3. Yeah, this is usually sorted out during voir dire.

I'm surprised the judge released the alternates before a verdict in a homicide trial.

[hrmjustin]

4. Yeah that is even more surprising.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Sounds like she was being "Pressured" to reach a decision she didn't agree with

and this was her way out

Clear conscious can include not wanting to be in deliberations were 1 or 2 dominant opinions are demanding the remaining jurors to reach a "Like Decision"

She may even know the ramifications of her decision on this trial but can not in clear conscious be a part of a process skewed by 1 or more "Law and Order Types" dominating the process

[Historic NY]

2. From all appearence in the rest of the story she did this.....

with due diliberence...the court had dismissed the alternates before she spoke up. One has to wonder who got to her???

Three alternate jurors had been released before deliberations began Wednesday afternoon.

Alsobrooks, who did not identify the juror, said the judge could find her in contempt if he determines that there was a deliberate attempt to be uncooperative. The juror must report for a contempt-of-court hearing Feb. 24, officials with the state’s attorney’s office said.

“I think this was disgraceful on the part of this juror,” Alsobrooks said. “We expended tremendous resources presenting this case.”

[rug]

6. She strikes me as genuinely confused.

I don't see contempt sticking if the question put to her during voir dire was the general "Do you have any beliefs or opinions that prevent you from serving as a juror in this case?"

The judge should be more pissed with himself for releasing the jurors prematurely. A trial isn't over until a verdict. That was an expensive mistake. This is what alternates are for.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. In Britain, alternates are released as soon as the jury has been sworn in

unless it's a really complicated, multi-week case that has a significant likelihood of someone becoming ill or otherwise unable to serve. Alternates are there for when you can't start a case, not for when jurors change their fundamental moral beliefs halfway through.

If they asked "do you have any beliefs or opinions that prevent you from serving as a juror in this case?", then her claim now is that she should have answered 'yes'. She strikes me as either under the thumb of her religion, or lazy and wanting an excuse to get out of jury duty. It's hard to believe that her beliefs changed in the few days. And that's why it looks like contempt to me.

[rug]

14. That is not the standard practice in the U.S.

While judges may release alternates to spare them further inconvenience, it can only be done with the consent of both the prosecution and the defense.

The trial is far from over once the case goes to the jury.

I remember one trial in Queens where jury deliberations were interrupted because a jury needed his methadone and the guy who brought if from the clinic would not give it to the court officers

[cbayer]

5. She had to research her beliefs?

This just doesn't seem right.

[rug]

7. Probably a recent convert.

I'm surprised neither the attorneys nor the judge probed further. Being a Jehovah's Witness is as much a red flag as being a cop when selecting jurors for a criminal trial.

[cbayer]

11. Recent like she converted between her selection and the actual trial?

Isn't religion a question that is generally a part of the overview of potential jurors?

[rug]

13. Have you ever gone to a Jehovah's Witness Bible Study?

I always talk to them.

Few people can say a Jehovah's Witness ever said to them, "Well, I have to go now" but that's generally how my conversations end.

I seriously doubt that the question of testifying in court ever came up before with this woman. The discussions about serving God's Kingdom, not man's, rarely reaches this level of detail.

[cbayer]

18. No, I haven't, but I have talked to them when they

came to my door (reluctantly).

You said something about a potential juror being a JH being a red flag. Why is that?

[rug]

19. Because they will not judge another.

Galatians 6:5: "For each will have to bear his own load." or "For we are each responsible for our own conduct."

In other words, all will be judged by Jehovah and his law, not by men and their laws.

In short, they cannot be relied on to follow jury instructions.

Some Witnesses serve on juries - there is no blanket prohibition - but it's always a crap shoot.

[cbayer]

20. Thanks. I know that is the reason she is using, but I had never heard

it used like that before.

Since most people will do pretty much anything to get out of jury duty, it's surprising that a JH wouldn't know they could bring that up during jury selection.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It sounds as if it might be "not sure what her beliefs are expected to be by fellow religionists"

and she found out that her participation in a jury might have been disapproved of. Or that the juror got bored, and thought that "it's my religion" is a catch-all excuse for getting out of civic duties.

I'm glad to see they're considering contempt of court proceedings.

[cbayer]

12. Perhaps she did get some pushback from her congregation once

they found out.

Doesn't sound like a boring trial, but more one that might make someone quite anxious.

[kwassa]

15. I find her excuse implausible.

She probably got personally very uncomfortable being in the position of judging and making a decision about the guilt of another, or maybe didn't like the interactions of the personalities of the jury. I think the religious excuse is just an excuse. She just wanted out.

[rug]

16. Could be. Some have feigned sickness to get out of an unpleasant duty.

[okasha]

17. Sounds about right to me.

If there's "not enough evidence," you just vote Not Guilty.

[rug]

21. I wish more jurors understood that.

Exactly right.

[goldent]

22. Another thing that might be going on here...

is that people often have an idyllic view of the trial system until they serve on a jury, and then they realize how arbitrary and unfair it can be, and they want out.

[Jim__]

23. She sent a note to the judge at about 1:00 AM?

Sounds like she may have had a bad night - lying wake in bed and thinking about it. If that's what happened I have some sympathy - things can really be nightmarish if you're lying awake at night thinking about them. I wonder if she would have sent the note if she had waited 'til later in the morning.