Juries

Attorneys for Komisarjevsky Argue that Defendant's Trial Should Have Been Moved

As some may recall, Mr. Joshua Komisarjevsky was sentenced to death for his role in a deadly 2007 Connecticut home invasion.  In an attempt to set aside Komisarjevsky's 2011 death sentence, his lawyers recently filed a motion for new trial arguing, among other things, that defendant's trial should have never been conducted in New Haven.

Here are some snippets from the defendant's motion

The court should grant a new trial because, based upon the notoriety of the case, the highly publicized advocacy of the victims, the configuration of the courtroom and the emotional effect of a clearly visible Petit posse silently but powerfully advocating that the defendant be put to death, Mr. Komisarjevsky was denied the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury...

Almost the entire pool of potentially eligible jurors in New Haven County was familiar with the case and that nearly as many had made up their respective minds that Mr. Komisarjevsky was not only guilty but also that he should be executed...

Even if some of the jurors selected did possess qualities of independence and rationality, the ambience of the courtroom, occurring as it did over numerous defense objections, seem designed to erode such independence and substitute passion for reason.  Dr. Petit and his supporters, often numbering in the scores, were segregateded on the side of the courtroom closest to the jury...Because this configuration of courtroom spectators did not allow the press, the curious, and the neutral to be mixed among the Petit advocates of death, the Petit posse, wearing the easily observable badges of solidarity (the Petit Family Foundation pins designed to honor the three victims at issue in this case), was immediately recognizable to the jury...

Prosecutor Moves for Change of Venue

Here is something you don't see too often, a change of venue motion filed by the prosecution.  Earlier this week, prosecutors filed a motion to get the Ryan Widmer murder trial moved out of Warren County, Ohio.  According to the prosecution, the defense along with the local media has tainted the jury pool.  The motion states  as " [a] result of this collaboration...publicity...is so pervasive and prejudicial that it has utterly corrupted the atmosphere surrounding this case and has affected the pool of potential jurors to such an extent that any attempt to seat a third jury in Warren county will be futile..."

WHIO Radio: Prosecutor files for change of venue in bathtub drowning case

Middletown Journal: Prosecution to ask for venue change in Widmer trial

SCT Decides Skilling v. U.S.

Today, the SCT issued its decision in Skilling v. U.S.  As some of you may recall, Jeffrey Skilling, the former CEO of Enron, was convicted of various criminal fraud charges related to the bankruptcy and ultimate collapse of Enron.  For those interested in learning about Skilling's fraud charges and the Honest Services Doctrine, I recommend visiting the White Collar Crime blog.  This post will only discuss the change of venue issue.

Prior to going to trial, Skilling requested a change of venue because of the adverse publicity that he and other defendants received in the Houston area, which happened to be home to Enron.  The SCT in upholding the trial's court's denial of Skilling's change of venue motion determined that "pretrial publicity and community prejudice did not prevent Skilling from obtaining a fair trial.  He did not establish that a presumption of juror prejudice arose or that actual bias infected the jury that tried him."

In making this determination, the SCT compared the facts of Skilling to those of Rideau v. Louisiana, a prior case in which the SCT presumed jury prejudice because the defendant's confession was broadcast on television to the local community.

In distinguishing Skilling from Rideau, the court made the following determinations.

(1) Rideau was tried in a small community. Skilling was tried in the 4th largest city in the U.S. 

(2) The local news stories about Enron were not blatantly prejudicial.

(3) There was approximately a 4-year gap between Enron's bankruptcy and Skilling's trial.

(4) Skilling was acquitted on 9 counts.

As for the issue of the 5-hour voir-dire and whether Skilling suffered "actual prejudice," in the jury selection process, the SCT said "No hard-and-fast formula dictates the necessary depth or breadth of voir dire."  Justice Sotomayor who wrote the dissenting opinion found that "actual prejudice" did exist and the "the District Court's 5-hour voir dire was manifestly insufficient to identify and remove biased jurors."  Justice Sotomayor was in agreement, however, with the majority with respect to the previously discussed presumed prejudice issue.

For more commentary on the SCT's ruling, see the following links.

NACDL 

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press