Hours after a federal jury convicted two men of plotting to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the judge released court documents relating to a potential rogue juror the defense had complained about.
According to the unsealed record, the defense asked the judge on the second day of the trial to dismiss the juror after learning that the person allegedly told his colleagues that the juror’s decision was made on the case from the outset.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker, however, denied the defense’s request to dismiss the juror after questioning the person, finding that the person was not biased or dishonest.
How the juror’s allegation unfolded
“The Court is eminently satisfied that the current record does not provide a basis to remove the subject juror for bias,” Jonker wrote.
“During the interview, the court bluntly presented the report of the alleged statements of the juror in question. The juror repeatedly and consistently denied making such statements,” Jonker wrote. “Based on the Court’s observation of the juror’s demeanor and behavior, these answers were credible. They are also consistent with the juror’s statements on the voir dire – that the juror could set aside any preconceived opinions and decide the case based solely on the evidence and the law presented – assurances that the juror repeated in chambers.”
Attorneys for defendants Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr., however, didn’t like the way it all unfolded. According to the judge’s unsealed order, this is what happened on the second day of the trial, after the jury had already been seated:
A day after jury selection, after both sides had presented their closing arguments, counsel for the defendant Croft “alert court staff to potential misconduct on the part of one of the jurors in this case. No further information was given at this time,” the judge said. order states.
After:Jury convicts Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. in Whitmer kidnapping plot
After:How 3 controversial jurors ended up in Whitmer’s kidnapping jury box
However, defense attorney Joshua Blanchard noted that the court may want to “deal with the matter non-publicly in order to limit the risk of publicity which could affect the fairness of the process as it unfolds. “wrote the judge.
The next day, Blanchard revealed to the judge that his office had received more information about the juror from one of the juror’s colleagues.
According to the judge’s order, sometime before the start of the trial, the juror informed a colleague of a summons for federal jury duty, that the person hoped to be chosen for Whitmer’s upcoming kidnapping trial.
“According to the report, the juror in question expressed a firm opinion on the guilt of the defendants and indicated that if chosen, he would ensure that the defendants were found guilty,” the order said, adding that the tipster corroborated some of the information. for the defense attorney, who then shared the information with the court.
Tipping was not first hand information
The judge wrote that he initially interpreted the tip as coming from an individual “reporting a direct, first-hand conversation with the juror”, although he later learned that it was all just a second hand report.
The trial resumed the next day, with the potentially problematic juror still in the box.
The identity of the juror has not been revealed.
The court conducted an investigation and the jury clerk followed up with the individual who had called Blanchard, while the case proceeded in the normal course.
“It would have wasted the time of the jury, the witnesses and the parties unnecessarily to delay the trial in the circumstances,” the judge wrote in his order. “Notably, the jury clerk learned that the reporting colleague had not directly spoken with the juror in question or heard anything from the juror. Rather, the information provided by the reporting colleague had come second hand through another colleague of both the reporting individual and the subject juror.”
The reporting colleague had no direct contact with the juror or about the juror’s “feelings about this case, juror service, or anything about the current case. He didn’t even know not with certainty whether the juror in question was serving in this case. The appellant was merely reporting a second-hand report from someone else of what that other person allegedly heard from the juror in question,” the judge wrote.
The defense objected to the judge’s approach
Additionally, the judge continued, the jury clerk “was unable to confirm the relationship with the other colleague because that colleague allegedly expressed a desire not to speak or be identified from another manner, and the caller refused to identify him”.
The jury clerk confirmed, however, that the incident occurred before the jury was selected.
The judge disclosed the jury clerk’s findings to both parties and said he would speak with the juror at the end of the trial day and give the parties an opportunity to review an unofficial transcript of the conversation.
The prosecution agreed to this approach, but the defense objected to not being present during the conversation with the juror.
“Counsel Blanchard also expressed concern that the juror in question was somehow manipulating the jury during the trial to secure an allegedly desired outcome,” Jonker wrote, adding that Blanchard asked that the full jury be questioned on the matter with the parties present, or that the court declare a mistrial.
The judge denied the request.
After:Accused of Whitmer kidnapping won’t risk freedom to help others at retrial
After:Judge scolds defense in Whitmer kidnapping trial: Stop wasting time talking ‘shit’
That evening, Blanchard filed a “brief regarding a possible jury question, asserting that the defense was entitled to a hearing on the matter, arguing that it was a constitutional right of the defendants. The brief was originally entered into the public court record, although Jonker ordered that it be sealed and prohibited the two parties from discussing any matters involving the jury.
The Free Press obtained a copy of the case file before it was sealed and reported on the potentially problematic juror.
The next day, the judge heard the juror in his chambers. It was August 12 and only court staff were present, with Jonker concluding that the defense argument that she should be present during questioning was “not persuasive”.
Jonker wrote in his order that the juror had no impact on the other jurors.
The judge sought to avoid suspicion among the jurors
“There has been no information to suggest that the juror in question is in any way tainting the jury process,” Jonkers writes. “There is nothing in the report, either forwarded by attorney Blanchard or to the jury clerk, that addresses the issue.”
Jonker also explained why he turned down Blanchard’s request to question all jurors on the issue.
“Asking each juror whether a particular juror in the box was breaking the rules – in the absence of any information to suggest so – would unnecessarily sow suspicion and create the risk of dissent, making it potentially impossible to continue with the group as it is. constituted,” Jonkers wrote in his command.
A likely factor in the appeals
The role of the potentially problematic juror is likely to play out in the appeals process. Le said he would “most certainly” appeal the verdicts, noting several controversies during the trial.
This juror was just one of them, although Jonker pointed out in his order that the juror in question had shown no bias towards one side or the other. “The behavior of the juror in the jury box is completely inconsistent with someone who made a pre-determined decision to convict the defendants,” Jonker wrote. “The juror was always attentive and engaged during the presentations of the government and the cross of each defendant.”
Additionally, Jonker noted, the juror “was engaged at times when other jurors were checking what, in the court’s opinion, were at times unnecessarily long and repetitive lines of cross-examination.”
The jury on Tuesday convicted Fox and Croft on all counts related to the conspiracy to kidnap Whitmer. They face life imprisonment.
Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepreeson.com