ILNews

Alternate juror’s comment doesn’t entitle man to new trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court properly determined an alternate juror’s alleged conduct posed only a remote risk of prejudice, and the judge’s admonishment of that juror was not an error, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

During Jorge Henriquez’s trial for Class D felony resisting law enforcement, the bailiff told Marion Superior Judge Marc Rothenberg that she believed she heard the alternate juror say “you need to be able to live with your decision” in the jury room. Rothenberg called the alternate juror into the courtroom and told him that he is not to take part in the deliberations or influence the jury in any way and is not to communicate with the jury. The jury convicted Henriquez.

The appellate court looked at Henriquez’s claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury using the fundamental error rule since Henriquez’s attorney did not object at trial to the judge’s actions. The appellate court rejected Henriquez’s claim his case is like Lindsey v. State, 260 Ind. 295 N.E.2d 819 (1973), and found it more like Henri v. Curto, 908 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2009). In Henri, the alternate juror allegedly used noises and hand gestures to communicate with the jury and also did exercises during deliberations, which caused the jurors to laugh. The Indiana Supreme Court found the alternate juror’s behavior immature, but it didn’t rise to the level of misconduct that would be injurious to Henri.

In the instant case, the trial court, “in its proper discretion, determined that the alternate’s alleged conduct posed only a remote risk of prejudice, if any at all,” Senior Judge John Sharpnack wrote in Jorge Henriquez v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1201-CR-6. “Therefore, no full scale inquiry was warranted.”

There was no error, fundamental or otherwise, and Henriquez didn’t meet his burden of showing that the alleged misconduct was gross and probably injurious to him, Sharpnack wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Twisting the facts
    The baliff said she thought she heard an alternate juror say, you need to be able to live with your decision. A definite influence on the jury and admonishment is not going to change that. Anyone that believes otherwise is really stupid. Henriquez's first line of defense is ineffective council. The court of appeals is not going to admit they are wrong even though they are. Think about it the baliff claimed she heard the statement in the jury room, but by the end of the story, that statement became hand jestures. Why was the baliff in the jury room anyway?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT