jury misconduct - observer article

8/14/2019 Jury Misconduct - Observer article

1/13

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1044-2 Filed 10/28/2009 Page 1 of 13


2/13

Page 1 of 13

Mor e Delicious Corr uption TrialLeftovers: Juror Says "There W as a Lot

of Disagreeing," Fax Machine W as "theTalk of the Day"By Sam Merten in Cover Story, Crime and Punishment

Mon., Oct. 19 2009 @ 2:37PM

Sam Merten

According to juror Nedra Frazier,

the arguments against conspiracy

surrounded Rickey Robertson, seen

here leaving the courthouse with his

wife and baby daughter after the

jury found him guilty on two counts.

A few hours after she and 11 other jurors found Don Hill and his four

co-defendants guilty of 23 of the 29 charges against them in the

Dallas City Hall corruption case, Rowlett resident Nedra Frazier gave

me a behind-the-scenes peek at the deliberations. Much like mylengthy interview with Don and Sheila Hill, the majority of my

conversation with Frazier didn't make it into the cover storyin the

current paper version of Unfair Park because of space constraints, so

I've again pulled together the highlights in the form of a Q & A after

the jump.



3/13

Page 2 of 13

Frazier, a 43-year-old wife and mother of two children, had planned

on spending the last few months trying to find a new job to replace

the one she held for 10 years atAvaya, a telecommunications

company, which had been shipped overseas to India at the end of

January. Instead, a last-minute challenge in June by the defense

alleging that the prosecution had been eliminating jurors based on

race resulted in her addition as the last of four black jurors selected.

Because the case involved several defendants and numerous counts,

Frazier endorsed a plan to discuss each count as it appeared on the

jury's verdict form, which juror Rachel Secore of Dallas confirms.

Each count was read out loud, followed by the definitions of thecounts, the count as it appeared in the indictment and then the

definitions once again. "There was a lot of discussion about the

definitions. That part we took very seriously," Secore says.

The jury spent the most time discussing count 20, Frazier says,

eventually finding both Hill and Reagan not guilty. "There just wasn't

enough evidence on that one." After that decision, jurors took a

second look at approximately four other counts, especially regardingSheila Hill's and Rickey Robertson's involvement. "There were several

we had to go back and just really, really think about it and talk about

it."

You so und h esitant [to talk]. I'm sur e you're re ady to be

done w ith it.

It was just overwhelming today, that's all.

W hat did the jury see as the mo st damnin g evidence against

the defendants?

Just looking at all the facts, like the video surveillance, the

transcripts, testimony -- all those were the factors. So, we had what,



4/13

Page 3 of 13

over 2, 300 hundred that we had to go through and just make sure

and make our verdict.

W as there any on e or two things that you saw in particular

that really illustrated that ther e was co rru ption going on?

There were a lot of things. There were a lot of conversations. A bunch

of surveillance. There were a lot of facts out there, details, specifics.

Like I said, we had over 2, 300 phone conversations that took place,

so you had a bunch of evidence.

W hat was m ost difficult about the proce ss of handling so

ma ny counts (29) and five defendants?

You take conspiracy with that count and you have to determine what

is conspiracy in the count. OK, what did this person do? Why would

we think that was conspiracy? So, because you had everybody's

opinion, they're like, "No, that's not conspiracy." So you had 12 people

with different versions of conspiracy, so you find yourself writing

down the information. What does the law say right now -- what's

conspiracy? And the documentation they gave us was wonderful -- thejuror's instruction book, the indictment book -- all that had the

definition in there. So we just had to go back to the board and say,

"OK, this is conspiracy. This is bribery. This is extortion," and

compare it with the evidence we found with that count.



5/13

Page 4 of 13

Sam Merten

Frazier says she was

"shocked" when Don Hill

(pictured) took the stand,

and his testimony

regarding a fax machine

was "the talk of the day."

W hat was your impression of Don Hill on the stand?

I don't know. I think everybody's like, "Wow." Was it a good idea? I

don't know. We didn't think he was gonna testify. We had no idea

who was on the list. So when he did get up to speak, we were stunned.

We had no idea that he was going to get up and testify. I was just

shocked. The one thing that stuck out -- I'm pretty sure in your mind

and everybody else's mind -- was the fax machine. (laughs) The fax

machine. (laughs) I'm sorry. (Secore says Hill's appearance was not asurprise because the defense referred to Hill's upcoming testimony

throughout the trial. Additionally, Hill's attorney, Ray Jackson,

revealed in his opening statement that Hill would be testifying.)

The fax ma chine stuck out most to you?



6/13

Page 5 of 13

I'm pretty sure everybody because that was the talk of the day, just

talking to everybody. (I followed up on this in a separate

conversation, which is provided at the end.)

That he lied abo ut it?

It really wasn't a big factor in the case. I couldn't understand what

was ... You had a fax machine. The question wasn't about the fax

machine, it was about if you received a document.

So the fact that he wa s willing to lie about som ething like

that concerned you?

Well, that and just some other things in the testimonies. It was so

much, what, we listened to 44 testimonies? Oh, my gosh. And he was

up there for what, three days I believe?

It was six actually.

Yeah, so it was a lot, back and forth. He's a very intelligent man. He

answered the questions. We were able to get a lot of information from

that. Did it hurt? I don't know. Like I said, the talk was the fax

machine. (laughs)

That was it?

Other than that, I feel like he presented himself well. He talked and

explained every question that was asked, but I think that's the main

thing that stuck out was the fax machine. It did because they made a

big deal out of it.

Again, wh at stuck out? That he w asn't willing to

ackno wledge that it was his?



7/13

Page 6 of 13

Or even why he even said, "I don't have a fax machine at my home." I

think it should have just stuck as, "I didn't receive the documents."

And then when he came back to say, "I don't have a fax machine," it's

like, "That wasn't one of the questions."

W hat about his explana tion of the infamou s $10,000 drop-

off at Friendship-West? Did you find it plausible?

(sighs) Just the way it was brought out behind the church -- it was

always behind the church -- I'm like, OK. And the way it was given to

him and what was written on the envelope: contributions. When you

listen to the defense and prosecutors, it was kinda swaying back and

forth. And when he got up to testify and said, "I didn't know Reagan

was coming to the church." And, of course, when [prosecutor Marcus

Bush] played the tape (laughing), it showed where [Reagan] was

going to meet him at the church.

So that was impor tant to you?

Everything was important. Yes, every document, every video,

surveillance photos. Everything was important -- every testimony.And that's why we took our time and made sure that facts were there.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>

Mor e Delicious Corr uption TrialLeftovers: Juror Says "There W as a Lot

of Disagreeing," Fax Machine W as "theTalk of the Day"By Sam Merten in Cover Story, Crime and Punishment

Mon., Oct. 19 2009 @ 2:37PM

Continued from page 1



8/13

Page 7 of 13

Sam Merten

Frazier says the defense didn't get

any traction with its argument that

Don Hill and his co-conspirators

weren't doing anything different

from former Mayor Laura Miller

(pictured) and developer Bill Fisher,

who weren't charged in the case.

W hat about the theory fro m the de fense that this goes on a ll

the time ? For exam ple, Laura Miller got contributions fromBrian P otashnik befor e voting for his projects, and Bill

Fisher wa s getting his projects approved by Jam es Fantroy

wh ile handing ou t security contracts to him. Do you feel like

they got any traction w ith that?



9/13

Page 8 of 13

I don't think so. They weren't on trial -- Laura Miller ... I don't know. I

really don't know ... I don't think anybody really just looked at it. Of

course, it was mentioned several times, but we had to look at the facts

that were in front of us with the defense. So I didn't take that into any

factor at all.

How did you view Bill Fisher a s a witness?

(sighs) Um, wow. Pretty brave, I guess. (laughs) You have to be pretty

brave and pretty confident to get on the stand and testify after what,

four years of video taping and phone conversations? I don't know. I

don't know. Wow. I don't know. (The time period for the taping and

phone conversations was less than one year.)

Obviously in your verdict you found a certain am ount of

wh at he said to be trustworthy.

We didn't really look at ... Some of the surveillance we looked at when

they were at The Loft, but Bill wasn't a lot looked at for his

[testimony]. It was just a bunch of phone conversations. Abunch of

phone conversations. Documents, e-mails. So Bill didn't play a big,big part of what we looked at.

Did you view him as som eone wh o was upset with

Potashnik and wan ted to get back at him?

I don't know ... I don't know if it was a game or retaliation. I don't

know what it was because when Brian was up on the stand, he wasn't

angry. Bill didn't seem upset with Brian or angry. I didn't know whatwas going on. Kathy Nealy wasn't upset with Bill, so you didn't know

what to think.

How did you view Potashnik as a w itness?



10/13

Page 9 of 13

I think all the witnesses were credible. We listened to all 44, and they

all played a big role in this. One didn't stand out more than the

others. We looked at everybody and listened to everybody's

testimony.

But, as far as you're concerned, was there a w itness that

stuck out to you in particular?

Not really. Like I said, there were so many people, and everyone had a

different experience, a different version. It was just amazing to me the

different experiences they had with the defendants, so that's why one

didn't stick out more than the others because everybody's experience

was totally different. Totallydifferent.

So wh en you guys were deliberating, you weren't

necessar ily having disagreem ents about specific ...

There was a lot of disagreeing; trust me on that one.

W hat wer e the disagreem ents abou t -- witnesses, e-ma ils,

surveillance?

I think it was more about the counts, or let's say the definition of the

counts -- if the person actually committed bribery, extortion.

W hat were the argumen ts against that there was a

conspiracy being com mitted?

The main one that kinda sticks out right now is Rickey Robertson

because he wasn't a major player. He was just behind the scenes

pretty much but was a player. His intentions probably going in were

good, but he didn't know the players or didn't know exactly what he

was getting into, and I think as he started doing business, different



11/13

Page 10 of 13

transactions, that's when it started ... He got involved, let's say that.

So I think that one is the only one that really sticks out in my head.

As far as Hill being tabbed by the govern m ent as the

kingpin, did you guys buy into that?

Not really, no.

You didn't think h e wa s leading everything?

I think everybody played their part individually. Everybody knew

what they were doing. Just take Reagan. He had his own thing going.

Lee had his thing going. Everybody played their own individual part.

You didn't necessarily see Hill as the leader though?

If he was, yeah, there's a lot of decisions he can make when it comes

to City Hall, but a lot of things he didn't need City Hall for the other

things that the other individuals were doing.

So how does it feel to be part of this major trial?

It's very emotional. It's overwhelming ... Today was very emotional

for me and for a lot of us. Even though we didn't communicate, we

were in the same room for four months. Just looking at the families

and the defendants, it was very, very emotional. And it still is very

emotional.

(A couple days later, I followed up w ith Frazier.) You

me ntioned the on e thing that stuck out about Don Hill'stestimony w as the fax ma chine.

It wasn't one of the factors in our decision.



12/13

Page 11 of 13

I understand . You said it was the "talk of the day," that

other jurors felt the sam e way.

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 really wasn't an issue.

W hen you said it was the talk of the day, were other juror s

seeing it the same w ay?

I don't know. We really didn't discuss it ... When it came to

deliberations, it didn't even come up.

W hen you said it w as the talk of the da y, it gives the

impr ession that you had been discussing it with the other

juror s. (This wou ld have violated an order fro m Ju dge

Barbara Lynn prohibiting jurors from discussing the case

prior to deliberations.)

Oh, no. No. It was the outside people. I was talking about the public,not the jurors -- the people in the courtroom, the media, the

prosecutors.

So, you were following along with what w as going on in the

me dia? (Again, this wou ld have violated Lynn's ord ers.)

No. When we went outside to take breaks or go to lunch, people kind

of elaborated on it. No, I wasn't allowed to read anything in the paper.

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at -- how you w ere

under standing it to be the talk of the day?

Just hearing people in conversations.



13/13

Page 12 of 13

So, you hear d other peo ple talking abou t it?

Yeah, other people just kind of talked about it in passing. You hear

people saying, "The fax machine."

The reason I bring it up is because I've heard som e

discussion that m aybe -- and n ot necessar ily you -- som e of

the jurors had been discussing the case with each other

prior to delibera tions. Did you w itness any of that?

No, I didn't.

You didn't?

No. When we went to lunch, we didn't talk about it.
