Juries are on my mind because my radio co-host recently served on two and because of concerns raised by lawyers’ efforts to undo the jury verdict that former LCPD Officer Brad Lunsford was guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
Those efforts could endanger the jury system, by subjecting a juror to a wide-ranging inquisition; but Lunsford is surely entitled to a fair trial.
On April 1, the state supreme court granted a temporary stay that Attorney-General Raúl Torrez said was needed to protect the juror from harassment, calling the proposed questioning “an ideological witch hunt.”
I can’t judge Lunsford’s guilt or whether this is an ideological witch hunt. Most of what Juror #8 has said about hoping for equality, seeing racism in our society, and being glad other white moms were facing up to that racism after George Floyd, many would say – and still be able to judge fairly a specific police officer in an individual case. (Does saying people shouldn’t kill others mean you’re barred from Luigi Mangione’s jury? Does saying cops shouldn’t kill people without some justification mean you’re barred from Mr. Lunsford’s jury?)
Federal law strongly discourages such post-trial questioning. Even where a juror intentionally gave dishonest answers during jury selection, the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly limited lawyers’ questioning of jurors. To overturn a verdict, lawyers must prove a deliberate lie when the truth would have elicited a valid challenge for cause. No fishing expeditions.
We should avoid intrusive post-verdict questioning unless it’s absolutely necessary, partly because we want private citizens to give readily of their time when asked to serve on juries. Knowing that jury service will likely trigger public scrutiny won’t encourage that. Our modern predicament, with almost everyone filtering almost everything through a partisan political lens, heightens the dangers. Here, pro-Lunsford folks started an on-line harassment campaign, publicly accusing the juror of “a disgusting and blatant bias,” and being a Black Lives Matter activist, and lying to infiltrate the jury so as to convict a police officer.
The jury system depends upon frank and robust deliberations; but if chance comments are likely to lead to intrusive post-trial questions, deliberations will be far less open. If manditory post-verdict questioning were a routine part of jury service, some juries in controversial cases might reach verdicts designed to avoid hassles, not verdicts designed to do justice.
I hope the New Mexico Supreme Court sharply limits post-juror questioning. If Juror #8 intentionally answered falsely to a material question in voir dire, even lying by omission, questions directly relevant to that could be appropriate; but harassing jurors with post-trial fishing expeditions isn’t. This may be particularly urgent where a juror has dared to vote for criminal conviction of a police officer, when the local police chief publicly urged folks to support the defendant after the verdict. In all cases, we need jurors to feel free to vote as their consciences dictate, without fear of repercussions.
If I were a judge, I’d likely allow some questioning about her SURJ membership, what that meant, and why she didn’t mention it during voir dire; but, judging from Defendant’s brief, Defendant’s lawyers know most of the relevant facts. Let the courts decide whether or not they’re things she should have articulated in voir dire; and then decide, keeping in mind that she was one juror among 12, whether a new trial is warranted.
Hears hoping the New Mexico Supreme Court finds the right balance.
– 30 –
[The above column appeared Sunday, 13 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version aired during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]
[Sorry not to post this six days ago. I usually post the Sunday Sun-News columns here on Sundays, but didn’t manage it this time. It’s also a still-developing story I may return to, for discussion of related developments.]
No comments:
Post a Comment