Court: Presence of improperly seated juror not grounds for new trial in strangulation case
In Wisconsin, an appellate court recently affirmed the conviction of a man who had requested a new trial after learning that a member of the jury in his case had accidentally been seated in place of his like-named father.
The defendant in the case, Jacob Turner, was convicted on charges of strangulation, suffocation, battery and disorderly conduct. The day after the verdict was delivered, the circuit court realized that the “John P. Smith” who showed up for jury duty was not the same one who had been summoned.
All of the identifying information included with the summons could have applied to either man, but because the father had been called up for jury duty several years earlier, he believed that the summons was for his son.
With the same first and last names, middle initial, phone number and home address, the younger John Smith readily believed the summons was directed to him, and had no trouble checking in when he showed up at the courthouse.
Thus, the wrong individual ended up serving on a jury that was assigned to a serious case. When it learned of the mistake, the circuit court held a hearing to determine exactly what had happened and how to move forward.
Court applied ‘harmless error’ test
Both the father and son testified about the chain of events that led to the latter showing up at court instead of the former. The two men explained that they had attempted to call a phone number that was included with the summons, but only reached an automated recording, which offered them no help.
Based on the Smiths’ testimony, the court concluded that the switch had been an “honest mistake” and decided to let the verdict stand. It then notified Turner and the state prosecutor of what had happened.
The court also informed both parties that it did not intend to take any further action on the matter, although it clarified that each side retained the right to request a hearing on the subject.
Subsequently, Turner filed a motion requesting that the court set aside his conviction and arrange a new trial with a properly selected jury. After his motion was dismissed, he filed an appeal.
Turner cited the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions to support his argument that it violated his rights when the court held a hearing on the matter without giving him the opportunity to be present. The convict argued that if he had been given the opportunity to question the Smiths, he may have uncovered additional evidence that would support his case.
However, the appellate court ruled that Turner could not rely on “speculative or hypothetical” theories of how he had been harmed by the error to establish a need for a new trial. Judges pointed out that the defendant had been provided with a deposition transcript and declined to summon the Smiths to the hearing on his motion for a new trial.
“The fact is that ‘John P. Smith’ who lived at the address listed in the summons appeared for jury duty and never misrepresented who he was,” wrote the three-judge panel that heard the case. “The fact that the clerk’s office meant to summon a different ‘John P. Smith’ at the same address does not make the son an improper juror.”
The District II Court of Appeals affirmed Turner’s conviction, as well as the fact that “harmless” errors in the legal process do not invalidate otherwise sound outcomes. At the same time, having an accurate record of proceedings is essential in order for litigants to identify any more substantive issues that may warrant remedial action.
Certified Wisconsin court reporters can aid legal professionals by providing reliable transcription and deposition videography services.
