Monday, May 7, 2001 | 11:16 a.m.
Boxers or briefs?
Deputy Special Public Defender Kristina Wildeveld remembers the feeling of astonishment she felt when that was the question two jurors asked a prosecutor moments after handing down a guilty verdict in a murder case.
"It made me wonder if they were even listening to the evidence during the trial," Wildeveld said.
A juror in another murder case didn't leave Wildeveld any doubts. When he and his fellow jurors were questioned after a hung jury, he said, "I couldn't listen to the evidence. All I could do was look at your legs."
Despite such incidents of questionable juror behavior, Wildeveld insists she is still a staunch believer in the jury system.
She also still believes jury verdicts need to be unanimous.
The debate over juries and their verdicts has resurfaced in the local legal community in the wake of the Margaret Rudin trial.
Juror 11 in that case, Coreen Kovacs, insisted for more than four days that Rudin was not guilty of shooting her husband Ronald to death in December 1994.
On the fifth day of deliberations, Kovacs changed her vote to guilty, and Rudin was convicted of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon. She now faces a life prison sentence.
Jury foreman Ron Vest told reporters afterward he favors a less-than-unanimous jury verdict system, reopening the public debate.
Wildeveld said unanimity is a crucial component of the American judicial system.
"We want a jury of 12 independent thinkers in the jury box. We don't want a group mentality in the jury room," Wildeveld said.
Wildeveld is not alone in her thinking. Many defense attorneys interviewed Friday agree. Among them is Wildeveld's boss, Phil Kohn.
Kohn noted that studies have shown 70 percent to 80 percent of jurors have made up their minds to convict before opening statements are even heard. To allow for a less-than-unanimous verdict would only handicap a defendant further.
"If we reduce the number to 11, we'll never have a system that believes in the presumption of innocence, and that's what our system was built on," Kohn said. "Men and women have fought and died for our rights, and the presumption of innocence is one of them."
Kohn noted that Vest told reporters that if it hadn't been for Kovacs, the jury would have rendered a verdict in 30 minutes.
That's appalling, especially considering there was nine weeks worth of evidence to discuss, Kohn said.
On the other hand, Kovacs didn't fulfill her part of the bargain, either, Kohn said.
Kovacs has since told reporters she was brow-beaten into a guilty verdict, but she had the perfect opportunity to say so before rendering her verdict, Kohn said.
Attorneys poll jurors in the courtroom so jurors can publicly say they disagree with a verdict without fear, Kohn said. Kovacs still chose to say "Yes, this is my verdict."
Kohn and Wildeveld said they suspect many jurors change their vote to go along with the majority, because they believe appellate judges will figure out what the truth is and reverse wrong convictions.
However, the appellate courts only look for technical mistakes, not factual errors, Kohn said.
In fact, Kohn noted, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist once wrote that "factual innocence is not a bar to execution."
While the attorneys said it isn't unusual for jurors to change their minds after a verdict, it is unusual for jurors to go public with their opinions so quickly.
It's also unusual for the public to know so much about jury deliberations.
The public knew within hours that Vest had asked District Judge Joseph Bonaventure to remove Kovacs from the jury panel during deliberations.
Attorneys point out it takes a great deal to be removed from a jury panel.
Rolling eyes, head-shaking and even sleeping aren't enough to get kicked off a jury, they said. Nor is flirting with the attorneys in a non-verbal way -- which they say is fairly common.
Clark County District Attorney Stewart Bell said judges have to determine two things when assessing a juror's ability to serve. They have to decide if the juror can follow the rules and if the juror can remain unbiased.
If the answer is yes, the juror will likely remain on the panel, Bell said. If a juror are sleeping or acting out in any other way, the juror likely will just be admonished.
Defense attorney Pete Christiansen said the jurors he has seen removed have acted inappropriately outside the courtroom.
Christiansen said a woman was kicked off a panel in one of his cases because she called her boyfriend during the trial -- a boyfriend who was sharing a cell block with the man Christiansen was defending. She also hadn't told anyone she was dating an incarcerated man.
Other jurors have been kicked off for investigating crime scenes, Christiansen said.
In another case, Christiansen said a couple of jurors could have been kicked off a panel had he known more about them. He learned after the fact that they had voted to convict his client simply because he couldn't speak English.
It is because jurors bring their personal biases, perceptions and life experiences to the courtroom that the jury screening, or "voir dire," is so important, Kohn said.
Attorneys need to know more about the people who will decide a defendant's fate, Kohn said.
Are they lying to get on the jury panel just so they can write a book or appear on Court TV? Are they just in it to get their 15 minutes of fame?
And yet, some judges in Clark County have been limiting the number of questions that can be asked during voir dire in their rush to get the trial over with, Kohn said.
archive
