Jury Misconduct

          Two weeks after I was convicted, but before I was sentenced, a female juror contacted Judge Jackie Glass’ office to report that there had been jury misconduct during the deliberation of my trial and that the misconduct had been “bothering her.” 

          The fact that a juror came back, after two weeks, to report jury misconduct is very telling.  If the jury truly was united in a unanimous decision to convict me, then why would a juror come forward two weeks after they convicted me and report jury misconduct? Obviously the jury WASN'T united in their decision to convict me.  I believe that the jury may have thought that I would receive a light sentence or even probation due to the fact that I was accused of inappropriate touching and not something more serious such as intercourse or rape.  The jury convicted me of 10 out of the 21 charges.  As close as they could get to half.  During the two weeks between my conviction and the juror coming forward, the local media repeatedly reported that I was facing up to 36 years to life for my convictions.  I think this was the determining factor as to why the juror came forward when she did. 

          Regardless of what I think brought the juror to report the misconduct, the fact remains that jury misconduct took place.  At that point, it was decided that all 12 jurors would be brought back, sworn in, and questioned about the misconduct.Four of the twelve jurors admitted to committing misconduct ranging from internet research to out of court experiments.  Eleven of the twelve jurors testified that they were aware of the misconduct by either participating in discussions about it or listening to the discussions.  Only the jury foreperson said that she was completely unaware of the misconduct and discussions.  I find that impossible to believe and definitely feel that the jury foreperson lied and had her own agenda to convict me. 

          The four jurors who committed the misconduct told the other jurors what they had done.  Discussions about this information lasted about 20 minutes and some jurors argued heatedly about it.  This was NOT insignificant and should have resulted in a new trial for me. 

          Judge Jackie Glass had specifically instructed the jury NOT to read the newspapers, watch TV, the news, or do internet research.  They were also instructed NOT to do any out of court experiments.  Glass felt it was important enough to give these instructions to the jury, yet several of them chose to ignore those instructions with no consequences. 

          The admitted jury misconduct, discussions, out of court experiments, and internet research along with the length of time the discussions went on should have resulted in a new trial for me.  Instead, Judge Glass ruled that she didn’t feel that the misconduct was prejudicial and that I would not be receiving a new trial. Judge Glass could not possibly know how the jury misconduct and discussions affected the jurors.  The fact that a juror came forward two weeks after trial, stating that the misconduct “bothered her”, speaks volumes as to the affect the misconduct had on the jurors.  The one question that I feel should have been asked of each juror was “did the jury misconduct affect your decision in the verdict?”  Glass would not let that question be asked. 

          Glass’ decision to not grant me a new trial, even after admitting that there was jury misconduct, is just another clear example of her bias and willingness to do whatever it took to ensure my conviction. The law does not require that jury misconduct be proven to be prejudicial, merely that it occurred.  A person could never know how prejudicial it is unless they were personally part of the jury and its deliberations.  Click Judge Jackie Glass’ tab to read more about her bias.