The District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida, Fifth District issued an opinion in State v. Sonneman on December 28, 2018. Mr. Sonneman was convicted of “two counts of lewd or lascivious battery of a child and one count of interfering with the custody of a child” following a jury trial. Less than a week after the verdict, the defendant filed a motion to conduct a post-trial interview of the jury foreperson. The motion was based on a Facebook posting in which the foreperson purportedly wrote that she had been the victim of very similar abuse as the abuse identified in the case. She also commented on the defendant’s failure to testify at trial.
The trial court denied the motion. The trial judge determined that during voir dire neither the defense nor the prosecution ever asked the jury panel if they had personally been the victim of sexual abuse. The closest question addressed whether family or friends had ever been the victims. On appeal the Fifth District affirmed the convictions and determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. It determined that the question as to whether a juror had personally been sexually abused was never asked and therefore the juror did not commit misconduct by failing to divulge the information. The appeals court further ruled that “the foreperson’s alleged consideration of the defendant’s decision to not testify cannot serve as a basis for a juror interview.” This ruling is based on the concept that litigants are not permitted to utilize the decision process of the jury as the basis for overturning a verdict.
Dispute Over Timing of the Release of Juror’s Names
The Tribune-Review reported on December 28, 2018 that the names of the jurors that heard Westmoreland County Sheriff Jonathan Held’s trial will remain sealed for now. Sheriff Held’s trial on the misuse of public personnel and equipment ended in a mistrial on December 7th. Since then, the Tribune-Review has sought access to the names of the jurors. However, Senior Common Pleas Judge Timothy Creany ordered that the names be released when Held’s criminal case is resolved. Sheriff Held’s new trial date will be in April, 2019. The Tribune-Review plans to appeal the ruling.
A Trial Consultant Reviews His Own Jury Experience
ABA Journal published a piece on January 2, 2019 titled, The married couple, the witch and the courtroom: A tale of jury selection. Author Diarmuid Traux is a trial consultant who was summoned for jury service in rural Colorado several years ago. In this piece he recounts his experience as a juror, describes the odd collection of people he served with and recognizes that many of his assumptions about jury service may not be inaccurate. This is a short and fun piece to read.
Playbacks/Readbacks of Closing Arguments
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division rendered a verdict in State v. Brown on December 27, 2018. Mr. Brown was convicted of various drug offenses following a jury trial. During voir dire, the jury requested to hear a playback or readback of the defense counsel's closing argument. The defense counsel urged the court to grant the request while the prosecution opposed it. Ultimately, the trial court denied the request because closing arguments are not evidence in the case. This issue was appealed and was an issue of first impression in the New Jersey Courts.
The Appellate Division held that:
“…trial courts in our State have the discretion in appropriate circumstances to grant jury requests to have the closing arguments of all counsel played back or read back to them, in full or in part. In recognizing that discretionary authority, we follow other jurisdictions that have acknowledged the discretion of judges to allow such playbacks or readbacks. We reject, however, defendant's contention that the denial of the jury's playback request in his own case was unduly prejudicial and requires a new trial.”
In reaching its holding, the appellate court considered caselaw from three other states. The state courts in New York and New Jersey both permit playbacks/readbacks of closing arguments. However, the state courts in Vermont doesn't.
An Interesting Batson Challenge
The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada issued an opinion in Cooper v. State on December 27, 2018. Mr. Cooper was convicted of two counts of battery constituting domestic violence and two counts of child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. During voir dire, the state exercised two of its five peremptory challenges on African-American women. The defendant objected, and the trial court ruled that the defendant had not established a prima facie case of racially discriminatory intent by the stare. [The appellate opinion is unclear if the defense counsel was given any opportunity to make an argument before the trial judge ruled.]
On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada found that 13% of the jury pool was African-American. However, the prosecution used 40% of its peremptory challenges to remove 67% of the African-Americans from the panel. They determined that this alone was enough evidence to make a prima facie case of discrimination. They further determined that the trial court erred by failing to make this finding and require the prosecution to present race neutral explanations for each of two peremptories utilized. As a result, the high court reversed and remanded the case.
Notice of new or upcoming articles, projects, symposia, and other jury-related events is appreciated. We strive to have to keep the "Upcoming Events" section relevant and up to date. When alerting us to articles published elsewhere on the Web, please include the URL. We cannot reprint articles from other sources without permission, and generally only provide a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions contained herein, as well as material appearing in external sites to which this publication provides links, do not necessarily reflect those of the National Center for State Courts. Presence of any such material should not be construed as support by the National Center for State Courts or any of its associations, affiliates, or employees.
Broken Links: Although the Editor makes an effort to ensure that links included in the newsletter are active at the time it is sent, there will be instances when readers find that links are broken or un-viewable for other reasons. Unfortunately, this will happen occasionally.
NCSC maintains exclusive use of its subscriber lists. Information contained therein will only be used by NCSC and is never distributed to other organizations. All communications from NCSC contain an opt-out provision for your convenience.
