jury misconduct - motion
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Jury Misconduct - motion
1/3
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILLS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON Page 1
JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGDAL01:1102481.1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
SHEILA D. FARRINGTON (03)a/k/a Sheila Hill, et al.
Defendant.
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
3:07-CR-289-M
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILLS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON JURY
MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Defendant Sheila Hill files this motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct or,
alternatively, an evidentiary hearing on the misconduct. In support, she states as follows:
Juror statements have come to light which indicate that, during the trial, jurors were
listening to comments from the public. In order to ensure that a fair trial was not compromised,
Mrs. Hill requests that the Court declare a mistrial or, alternatively, conduct an evidentiary
hearing and investigation into whether juror misconduct has occurred.
I.
After the verdict, theDallas Observerinterviewed juror Nedra Frazier, who commented
that Don Hills testimony about the fax machine was particularly memorable, and that at the
time, his testimony had been the talk of the day. See Dallas Observer Unfair Park Blog,
More Delicious Corruption Trial Leftovers: Juror Says There Was a Lot of Disagreeing, Fax
Machine Was the Talk of the Day, pp. 4-5 (Oct. 19, 2009) (attached as Exhibit A). When the
reporter pressed her on this statement a couple of days later, Ms. Frazier confirmed the influence
of outside people:
Reporter: [] You said it was the talk of the day, that other jurors felt the same way.
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1044 Filed 10/28/2009 Page 1 of 3
-
8/14/2019 Jury Misconduct - motion
2/3
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILLS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON Page 2
JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGDAL01:1102481.1
Juror: Well, I think the public itself. Everybody just made a big deal out of it between
the defendants and the prosecutors. Well, the prosecutors made a big deal out of it. I
guess they took it and ran with it. It was like, Wow, we got him. Like I said, it reallywasnt an issue.
Reporter: When you said it was the talk of the day, it gives the impression that you hadbeen discussing it with the other jurors. . . .
Juror: Oh, no. No.It was the outside people. I was talking about the public, not the jurors
-- thepeople in the courtroom, the media, the prosecutors . . .When we went outside totake breaks or to go to lunch,people kind ofelaboratedon it. . . .
Reporter: I guess thats what Im trying to get at -- how you were understanding it to bethe talk of the day?
Juror: Just hearing people in conversations.
Id. at 11 (emphasis added). When faced with the import of these comments by the reporter,
Frazier tried to backtrack from them. See id. Unfortunately it appears that outside sources
influenced the jury (or, at least, Ms. Frazier).
Additionally, an acquaintance of DAngelo Lee reported to him that Ms. Frazier spoke
with him about the case and gave opinions about the evidence. See Exhibit B (Declaration of
DAngelo Lee).
Finally, the Court also discovered a newspaper in the jury room that contained an article
about the trial. While Mrs. Hill did not object to continuing the trial at the time, in light of the
other evidence recently discovered, this is another fact that warrants further investigation.
II.
The insinuation of outside influences is inimical to the premises upon which our system
of justice rests. As Justice Holmes wrote, The theory of our system is that the conclusion to be
reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any
outside influence, whether of private talk or public print. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1044 Filed 10/28/2009 Page 2 of 3
-
8/14/2019 Jury Misconduct - motion
3/3
DEFENDANT SHEILA HILLS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON Page 3
JURY MISCONDUCT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGDAL01:1102481.1
974, 978 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907)). Therefore,
a presumption of prejudice will arise when potential outside influence is brought to the
attention of the trial court, and the failure of the trial judge to hold a hearing constitutes an
abuse of discretion. Id. at 279.
III.
Accordingly, because of the potential outside influence discussed in this motion, Mrs.
Hill requests that the court declare a mistrial or, alternatively, that an evidentiary hearing be held
to determine whether and to what extent misconduct occurred.1
October 28, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Victor D. Vital
Victor D. VitalState Bar No. 00794798
Jon MureenState Bar No. 24060313
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 Ross AvenueDallas, Texas 75201-2980
Telephone: (214) 953-6500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on October 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document
and all parties of records were served view the courts ECF system.
/s/Victor VitalVictor Vital
1 The jurors may be put under oath and questioned at this hearing. See Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (providing that jurors
may testify in post-verdict evidentiary hearing concerning whether any outside influence was improperly brought
to bear upon any juror).
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1044 Filed 10/28/2009 Page 3 of 3