DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON Page 1JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

DAL01:1102481.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICAPlaintiff,v.SHEILA D. FARRINGTON (03)a/k/a “Sheila Hill,” et al.Defendant.§§§§§§§§§§CRIMINAL ACTION NO.3:07-CR-289-M

DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURYMISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant Sheila Hill files this motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct or,alternatively, an evidentiary hearing on the misconduct. In support, she states as follows:Juror statements have come to light which indicate that, during the trial, jurors werelistening to comments from the public. In order to ensure that a fair trial was not compromised,Mrs. Hill requests that the Court declare a mistrial or, alternatively, conduct an evidentiaryhearing and investigation into whether juror misconduct has occurred.

After the verdict, the

Dallas Observer

interviewed juror Nedra Frazier, who commentedthat Don Hill’s testimony about “the fax machine” was particularly memorable, and that at thetime, his testimony had been “the talk of the day.”

See

Dallas Observer “Unfair Park” Blog,

“More Delicious Corruption Trial Leftovers: Juror Says ‘There Was a Lot of Disagreeing,” Fax Machine Was “the Talk of the Day

”

pp. 4-5 (Oct. 19, 2009) (attached as Exhibit A). When thereporter pressed her on this statement a couple of days later, Ms. Frazier confirmed the influenceof “outside people”:Reporter: [] You said it was the “talk of the day,” that other jurors felt the same way.

Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1044 Filed 10/28/2009 Page 1 of 3

DEFENDANT SHEILA HILL’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON Page 2JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

DAL01:1102481.1

Juror:

Well, I think the public itself

. Everybody just made a big deal out of it betweenthe defendants and the prosecutors. Well, the prosecutors made a big deal out of it. Iguess they took it and ran with it. It was like, “Wow, we got him.” Like I said, it reallywasn’t an issue.Reporter: When you said it was the talk of the day, it gives the impression that you hadbeen discussing it with the other jurors. . . .Juror: Oh, no. No.

It was the outside people. I was talking about the public

, not the jurors-- the

people in the courtroom, the media

, the prosecutors . . .When we went outside totake breaks or to go to lunch,

people kind of

elaborated

on it

. . . .Reporter: I guess that’s what I’m trying to get at -- how you were understanding it to bethe talk of the day?Juror:

Just hearing people in conversations

Id.

at 11 (emphasis added). When faced with the import of these comments by the reporter,Frazier tried to backtrack from them.

See id.

Unfortunately it appears that outside sourcesinfluenced the jury (or, at least, Ms. Frazier).Additionally, an acquaintance of D’Angelo Lee reported to him that Ms. Frazier spokewith him about the case and gave opinions about the evidence.

See

Exhibit B (Declaration of D’Angelo Lee).Finally, the Court also discovered a newspaper in the jury room that contained an articleabout the trial. While Mrs. Hill did not object to continuing the trial at the time, in light of theother evidence recently discovered, this is another fact that warrants further investigation.

II.

“The insinuation of outside influences is inimical to the premises upon which our systemof justice rests. As Justice Holmes wrote, ‘The theory of our system is that the conclusion to bereached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by anyoutside influence, whether of private talk or public print.’”

United States v. Chiantese,

582 F.2d

Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1044 Filed 10/28/2009 Page 2 of 3