That's one of the jurors in the Joe Cool case. Articles in the Sun-Sentinel and the Miami Herald detail how at least 3 jurors still believe Guillermo Zarabozo is not guilty of all counts, even the 4 they voted guilty on.
From the Sentinel:
Three jurors in the Joe Cool murder-at-sea trial said Wednesday they felt pressured to convict the 20-year-old defendant on gun charges even though they believed he did not kill anyone or know his companion planned to hijack the boat.One said she voted to convict, even though she felt the man on trial was innocent. Another seemed to believe he had cast a not-guilty vote, though guilty verdicts in federal court must be unanimous.After four days of heated deliberations, the 12 jurors voted Tuesday to convict Guillermo Zarabozo of supplying the firearm used to kill Capt. Jake Branam, 27; his wife, Kelley, 30; his half-brother, Scott Gamble, 36; and the first mate, Samuel Kairy, 27.In interviews with the Sun Sentinel, two women and one man from the panel said they were confused about the gun charges and badgered — even bullied — to vote guilty by fellow jurors.
From the Herald:
''I want to take back my vote to convict. I'm just sick over this whole thing. I think there has been a great miscarriage of justice, and I need to correct it,'' Venora Gray, 51, said.
Her disclosure came one day after she and 11 other jurors deadlocked on the major charges of first-degree murder, kidnapping and robbery in the fatal shootings of four Miami Beach charter boat crew members last year. But they all agreed to convict Zarabozo of four counts of using a firearm in a violent crime -- a charge she and the other panelists did not realize carried a life sentence, she said.
''No one in that jury room knew those were such serious charges,'' said Gray, a waitress from North Miami, who years ago served as a juror in another murder trial and convicted the defendant. ``There was no way I would have voted on that if I had known.''
The jurors' revelations could have a serious impact on an already challenged conviction. Seconds after Tuesday night's verdict, Zarabozo's defense team said the jurors could not convict on the charge of using a firearm to kill when they had not convicted Zarabozo of any of the murder charges.
Judge Huck is having a hearing on Monday to determine whether he should grant a new trial on the four counts on which the jury convicted. These interviews seem to support the defense view that the jurors were confused on the gun count.
As an aside, this bolsters my view that every jury should know the potential penalties of the crimes they are voting on. Judge Jack Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York recently wrote a 200+ page opinion holding that in some cases jurors should know the penalties.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
No they shouldnt. That would mean that they would be making a policy judgment on the severity of the charges, of the seriousness of the crime, of the comparison with other charges. That is not a jury's role. They are asked to determine facts. Did the govt prove its case. If they did, the severity of punishment is not what they are here for. These jurors were obviously pressured. They needed to stick to their guns if they really felt that way. The more persuasive argument is that the language of the allen charge is too coercive.
ReplyDeleteBest trial Judge in the Country. Jack Weinstein.
ReplyDeleteBut then, I'm biased.
My gut after reading the post is that jurors should be told what the penalty could be. However, 10:12 makes a damn good arguement.
ReplyDelete10:12's arguments is spot on. To argue that jurors should consider punishment in reaching their verdict is intellectually dishonest and ignores well-established principles governing the role of a jury. Plus, their concern that the defendant is going to get life in prison is misplaced. Life in prison is a statutory maximum (not guideline sentence). Thus, this whole "life in prison" concern is a bit of a red herring. As to the "bullying" concern, at the end of the day, they agreed to convict on the 4 charges. The claims of bullying are dubious especially given that they making those claims contemporaneously with their concern about possible punishment. The jury verdict--not what they're saying now--is the more reliable indicia of what they were thinking.
ReplyDelete“When possible juror misconduct is brought to the trial judge's attention he has a duty to investigate and to determine whether there may have been a violation of the sixth amendment.” United States v. Shackelford, 777 F.2d 1141, 1145 (6th Cir.1985). The trial judge's decision regarding the measures necessary to make this determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., id.; United States v. Rigsby, 45 F.3d 120, 125 (6th Cir.1995); United States v. Griffith, 17 F.3d 865, 880 (6th Cir.1994). “A trial court's refusal to permit an evidentiary hearing may constitute abuse of discretion when the alleged jury misconduct involves extrinsic influences.” Shackelford, 777, F.2d at 1145; see also Rigsby, 45 F.3d at 124. However, refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing is not an abuse of discretion where there is no credible allegation of extraneous influence or information. See Rigsby, 45 F.3d at 125; Griffith, 17 F.3d at 881; Shackelford, 777 F.2d at 1145. This principle flows from the common law rule that a juror is not competent to question his own verdict and its concomitant exception that the only aspect of deliberations a juror may testify about is whether deliberations were influenced by extraneous influence or *519 information. This common law rule and its exception are codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) which states:
ReplyDeleteUpon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.
I think Markus buried the lead. Here is the real issue:''I would like to take back my verdict. I thought those were minor charges, like being reckless in the care of your gun. We had asked the judge to clarify those charges for us, and he didn't,'' said the juror.
ReplyDelete2:36, what does "clarify those charges" mean? If you read newspaper reports regarding the jury question on the lesser included charges, it appears that what they really wanted was for the judge to APPLY LAW TO THE FACTS set forth in the question. That, is not, "clarifying the charges." Clarifying the charges would be explaining a statutory term or asking the lawyers to define a term that is not otherwise defined in the pattern instructions, but otherwise has a definition in the case law, regulations, etc. So I would take issue with the phrase "clarify those charges." The jurors wanted much more than that.
ReplyDelete2:43 - Read the articles from last week about the jury question ans you will see that you are wrong.
ReplyDelete4:18--Here is what the Herald article on the jury question says: "At 4:15 p.m., jurors sent a note to U.S. District Judge Paul Huck. In a nutshell, they posed this question: If the defendant brought a gun on board the Joe Cool without knowing a crime would be committed, did that automatically make him a participant and also guilty?" How is that NOT a question that seeks to apply law to the facts? (the facts being "if the defendant brought a gun on board . . ."). Unless you're talking about another jury question, I think I have the better of this argument.
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that jurors should not be told the penalty after seeing what happened in this case? The juror clearly stated that he voted guilty even though he did not believe the defendant was guilty because he thought the counts were not serious. This shows that jurors evaluate counts and make decisions on guilt and innocence based not on a strict standard of reasonable doubt, but on many factors, including whether the juror believes the count carries a significant prison sentence. What this means is that there is a difference between the theory that jurors should not be told of the penalty, and the reality that they make decisions on what they think the penalty is. Under these circumstances, we should not ignore what jurors do any longer. They should be told the penalty.
ReplyDeleteRumpole--simply because jurors do not follow the instructions does not mean we should throw in the towel and condone that type of decision-making process. You're reasoning begs the question: is it proper for jurors to take into account punishment? I don't think we analyze that question in a truly thoughtful way by saying "well, jurors do it anyway so we should just let them." That's not much of an analysis at all. If a juror says, "well, I thought he was guilty of the offense, but I acquitted because of the penalty," (or vice versa)that strikes me as incredibly disingenuous. Your position has appeal when looking at individual cases (hey, even lawyers are human), but would not make a for a good rule across the board.
ReplyDeleteHow is this juror testimony even relevant?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it barred by 606(b) as internal influence DURING deliberation?