The jurors deliberating the fate of the man accused of murdering Chicago Police Officer Michael Ceriale have raised questions about one juror’s ability to fairly deliberate because he told them he was falsely arrested by police on drug charges, according to court transcripts.
Prosecutors said the juror failed to disclose the arrest when he was selected for the case, prompting them Tuesday to demand that the juror be excused from the case and an alternate brought in as a replacement. Judge Dennis Porter called the omission “unfortunate” but refused to disqualify the juror.
The jurors expressed their concerns in two notes to the judge, according to court transcripts obtained by the Tribune that provide a rare glimpse into the tensions behind a closed door in the Criminal Courthouse where jurors have been deliberating for 7 1/2 days.
The jury will resume deliberations Wednesday morning on whether Jonathan Tolliver, 19, should be convicted of fatally shooting Ceriale in 1998.
The standoff came to light in a cryptic note from one juror to the judge Saturday inquiring about the definitions of perjury, jury tampering and obstruction of justice. The question was in regard to a single juror who failed to disclose a previous arrest during the questioning that precedes the impaneling of a jury.
A second note from the jury foreman sent to the judge Monday portrayed a jury divided 11-1 and raised questions about the ability of the “one juror” to deliberate in good faith.
Nothing in the note or in the transcripts indicates which way the jurors were leaning on the one remaining charge they have yet to decide.
The note from the foreman Monday read, in part:
“Judge Porter, it has come to our attention that a member of our jury did not disclose, under oath during jury selection, that the juror was arrested, processed and the case originally dismissed for a felony drug charge,” the foreman wrote in the letter. “This juror indicated to us that he was set up and falsely accused by the police.
“The majority of the jurors feel that this experience has affected our chance for an open deliberation to reach a verdict in this case. Are there any points of law that will help us overcome this impasse while we continue our deliberations?”
But Porter indicated he saw no reason to stop the deliberations. He explained that the note does not suggest that the jury is hung.
The judge ordered the jury to review all previous instructions he has given them and to continue deliberating.
More Top Picks Best Power Reclining Sofas For Seniors
On Tuesday, Porter told the lawyers that had he known about the problems with the juror “prior to deliberations starting, I would remove that juror. I think it’s very unfortunate that we now find ourselves in this position, but right now I don’t see what we can do about it.”
Lawyers typically do criminal background checks on prospective jurors.
In a case involving a police officer, in particular, a potential juror’s past dealings with authorities would have been of great interest to the prosecution.
“The prosecutors usually run checks on them, and you would think in a case like this, especially, they would be careful with screening,” said Tom Geraghty of Northwestern University Law School. “It’s peculiar.”
In addition, jurors are asked extensive questions about their experience with and beliefs about law-enforcement officers.
But John Gorman, a spokesman for Cook County State’s Atty. Richard Devine, said Tuesday that prosecutors first learned that the juror had a previous arrest during the side-bar communications that took place with the judge Saturday.
“What we do is depend on the jurors for their truthfulness,” Gorman said.
The juror disclosed that he was involved in a civil complaint with the Chicago Transit Authority, Gorman said, but not that he had been arrested on a drug charge in 1999.
According to court records, the juror was charged with possession of a controlled substance, and the charge was dismissed about a month later after a finding of no probable cause–meaning a judge found that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the case.
Theoretically, a juror who lies while being questioned for a spot on a jury could face criminal charges–for contempt of court or perjury, legal experts said.
But as a practical matter, such charges are rare.
“It’s technically possible, but the county doesn’t want to discourage people from serving on juries,” said Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern.
The law certainly suggests that lying during voir dire can be reason to remove a juror from a case, but the length of this case and the timing of the prosecutors’ request have created an unusual situation.
The notion of dropping a juror–replacing him with an alternate who went home days ago–is unimaginable, the legal experts said.
“The deliberations have gone on all these days already, and with all the TV coverage out there, how can you expect an alternate to be fair?” asked Ron Menaker, a criminal defense lawyer.
In addition, lawyers not connected with the case said that bringing in an alternate now would create an unavoidable problem with the three other counts for which the jury has said it has reached a conclusion. Would the new jury begin all deliberations again or just on the final count?
In certain instances, if a problem arises with a juror after deliberations have begun, a case can be decided by the 11 remaining jurors. But that, legal experts said, must be agreed upon by the prosecution and defense–an agreement that apparently was not reached in this set of circumstances.
The experts said the judge was now left with an added potential legal problem. If the judge declared a mistrial based on the controversy over the juror, the defense lawyers might later be able to argue that their client could not be tried a second time because the jury problem might have been avoided. If, on the other hand, the jury continues deliberating and eventually tells the judge it cannot reach a verdict, then prosecutors could try the case a second time.
Though rare, cases of last-minute fights to remove jurors have occurred in the past, sometimes raising new legal questions for appeal.
Last year, during former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards corruption trial, a juror was dismissed after nine days of deliberations. Two and a half days later, the remaining 11 jurors convicted Edwards and four others of crimes connected to a casino license extortion scheme. The dismissal of the juror has become central to appeals by Edwards and the others.