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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT