Page 2 of 3parties during the Court’s consideration of the issue. That article factually reported events thathad occurred during the trial, and did not report matters that were excluded from the jury.Consequently, there was no evidence of prejudice, even if the jurors had read the article.Defense counsel, on behalf of their clients, expressly stated that the Court should not conduct afurther inquiry, although the Court offered to do so, and requested merely that the Court give anadditional admonition to the jurors that they not access news about the case, which the Court did.The parties thus waived any objection based on the presence of the newspaper in the jury room.Based on all of these facts, the Court
DENIES
Defendant’s Motion for New Trial on this basis.
Lee Declaration
. A second issue raised in Defendant’s Motion for New Trial relies upona Declaration of Defendant D’Angelo Lee. Lee states that an acquaintance of his informed himthat while the trial was ongoing, a juror talked to him, and gave opinions, about this case. TheDeclaration of Mr. Lee is ambiguous and nonspecific, and reports rank hearsay from anunidentified person, about unidentified events and subjects allegedly discussed at an unidentifiedtime and place. That is a wholly insufficient basis for the Court to conduct a further inquiry, letalone to grant a new trial. The Motion for New Trial is
DENIED
on this basis.
Dallas Observer Article
. The Motion for New Trial argues a third issue—that the same juror referenced in Mr. Lee’s Declaration gave an interview to Mr. Sam Merten, of the
DallasObserver
(“
Observer
”), which was reported in the
Observer
on October 19, 2009. No affidavitor other admissible evidence on this issue was submitted to the Court. Assuming that the articleaccurately reports what the juror said,
1
Hill argues that the conduct described constitutes jurymisconduct. Unlike reported cases of alleged jury misconduct, the Court and the parties’
1
On November 2, 2009, the Court requested the
Observer
to furnish any copy of the tape recording of the interviewwith the juror, so that the Court could verify what the juror said. Citing to some vague constitutional protectionunknown to this Court, the
Observer
declined to produce the tape to the Court. Because of the
Observer’s
refusal toproduce the tape, the Court cannot assess the accuracy of the story.
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1061 Filed 11/04/2009 Page 2 of 3
Add a Comment