ILNews

Trial court properly retained 1 juror, dismissed other

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defendant who argued that a Marion Superior Court should have dismissed a juror after she stood near the defendant and his attorney briefly during a recess, but should not have replaced the juror who claimed she wasn’t comfortable rendering a decision, lost before the Court of Appeals Wednesday.

Romero Leslie appealed his conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, arguing fundamental error by the trial court when it denied his request to dismiss juror Kim Shiflette. During a recess, Shiflette left the jury room unaccompanied in search of the bailiff and stood in a hallway near Leslie and his attorney for about 10 seconds before Leslie and his attorney saw her and stopped talking. The two were discussing trial strategy.

After a lengthy discussion with the court, Master Commissioner Peggy R. Hart allowed Shiflette to stay on the jury. Leslie did not object. Shiflette said she did not hear the conversation between Leslie and his attorney. But on appeal, he argued Hart committed fundamental error by allowing Shiflette to remain a juror.

There was no direct contact between Shiflette and Leslie or his attorney, and she said she didn’t recognize the defendant or his lead attorney in the hallway, Judge Edward Najam wrote in Romero Leslie v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1203-CR-135.

Leslie also claimed on appeal Hart should not have replaced Kermetha Brown with an alternate juror over his objection. Shortly after deliberations began, Brown wrote the court a note saying she was not comfortable deciding whether Leslie is guilty. Brown repeatedly told Hart that she was uncomfortable making a decision and she couldn’t render a decision.

The trial court determined that Brown’s inability to make a decision as a juror affected the integrity of the process, Najam wrote, and Leslie didn’t show how replacing her prejudiced the deliberations of the rest of the panel or impaired his right to a trial by jury.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT