With New Covid Variants Expected, Judges Should Consider Response to New Mask Mandates

 As I am now retired I feel I can share a couple of personal experiences during my last few months on the bench related to Supreme Court-ordered mask mandates.  In 2 separate jury trials on the first day of jury selection, jurors entered the courthouse unmasked despite signs everywhere that masks were required.  In each case the prospective juror told bailiffs in the hallway that they would not wear a mask.  I instructed the bailiff that they should put on a mask and enter the courtroom for me to address them.  Each juror still refused to wear a mask.  They entered the courtroom unmasked and each told me they would not wear a mask.  Neither chose to give me a medical, scientific or political reason.  One I simply excused.  The other was told to come back the next morning after consulting an attorney to tell me why they should not be held in contempt of court.  This juror came back with a lengthy letter from his physician explaining his various medical problems which justify no mask wearing.  Despite being clearly bogus, the juror was excused.  I concluded that the entire trial would be at risk having such a combative person on the jury.

Judges may want to consider their various responses to belligerent jurors if mandates such as in 2020-21 return.  I wish you luck.

Flirting Juror Dismissed In Michigan Gov Kidnapping Trial; Skittles at Issue

 On October 14, 2022, the judge in the trial of Paul Bellar, accused of plotting with others to kidnap the Michigan Governor, dismissed a juror for alleged flirtatious non-verbal communication with the defendant.  Over multiple trial days attorneys observed the flirting as did the court.  Mr. Bellar was also alleged to have been flirting back to the juror.  Despite objections from defense counsel and discussion about Mr. Bellar having Skittles in his closed fists, the juror was dismissed.

UPDATE:  All 3 defendants found guilty.  No indication of further juror issues.

City of Omaha Hit With $700,000 Verdict Seeking New Trial

 A former Omaha Police Captain sought damages for wrongfully being passed over for promotion due to her past allegations of sexual harassment against another officer in the department.  The federal jury awarded her $700,000 but the City is now seeking a new trial due to alleged communications between a juror and a former Omaha police officer.  As is often the case no one was specifically named.  As details evolve I will update this post.

Parkland Trial Death Penalty Phase: Juror Claims Threat By Another Juror

 Deliberations in the Parkland Murder Trial in Florida on October 13 ended in a 9-3 vote for a life sentence rather than death for Nikolas Cruz.  One juror told the state attorney's office that another juror threatened her during deliberations.  The state is seeking an investigation by the court of possible juror misconduct, however the verdict cannot be overturned nor a mistrial ordered.  A unanimous verdict is required under Florida law for the death penalty.  Jurors could not agree that aggravating factors outnumbered mitigating factors.  Life sentences will be formally ordered on November 1.  It is possible that the trial judge will leave all investigation to the state after sentencing since the outcome cannot be changed.  Jurors can be questioned by the state and potential miscreants would be entitled to counsel if interviewed.  

When First Trial Ends in Mistrial, Should Jurors Remain Under Oath of Confidentiality?

 Elkmont, Alabama:   In September the trial of a teen accused of killing 5 family members ended in a mistrial when the FBI was finally able to unlock the cellphone of one of the victims.  The jurors were dismissed and were promptly interviewed by the media without their names being disclosed.  They described the graphic evidence as horrific and difficult to watch, warning the next panel of jurors to be prepared to handle the emotional toll.  They had many questions about the evidence and said they would not have found the teen guilty.

So we have extensive coverage in the media of these jurors' personal opinion about the teen's guilt or innocence in a case which will be re-tried.  While the court properly dismissed them it raises a question in my mind:  should the jurors remain under their oath of confidentiality until the second trial is concluded?  This would require a change in most court rules, I believe.  In a second trial, can both the teen and the State have a fair trial?  It is worth thinking about.