A “racist” juror who was referred to as for a homicide trial — and who had a heated argument with a fellow juror outdoors the courthouse — has led to the defendant’s convictions being tossed.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court docket has vacated Pedro Vasquez’s convictions of homicide within the second diploma and different prices following the racism allegations within the trial.
“During jury deliberations in the defendant’s murder trial, an argument between two jurors led to allegations of racial bias,” the Supreme Judicial Court docket wrote in its ruling.
“Although the judge made a limited inquiry into the matter, because we conclude that it was insufficient to satisfy the protections under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to a fair and impartial trial, we vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial,” the SJC dominated.
The lethal taking pictures on this case was again in January of 2015, when Springfield law enforcement officials responded to a name for photographs fired. The cops noticed a black Jeep with the sufferer, Yahaira Hernandez, sitting within the driver’s seat with a deadly gunshot wound to the again of her head.
Police recovered surveillance footage from a house safety digicam throughout the road from the homicide scene.
The recording confirmed the Jeep come to a cease in the suitable facet of the body. A couple of minutes later, the rear driver’s facet door opened, and the digicam recorded an argument in Spanish between a male and a feminine, a gunshot, and the shooter fleeing the scene on foot.
As a result of no bodily proof linked Vasquez to the crime, prosecutors relied on the surveillance video to show his id because the shooter.
The jury started their deliberations on a Friday afternoon, the tenth day of the trial, and deliberated for about two hours earlier than the decide let the jurors go for an extended weekend.
“A court officer observed the juror in seat 2 (juror no. 2) and the juror in seat 4 (juror no. 4) arguing outside the jury room,” the ruling reads. “Not long afterwards, both the court officer and the prosecutor in the case witnessed a further altercation between the two jurors from a court house window.”
The following court docket day, the decide acquired notes from two jurors. One was from juror no. 4, who reported that after the jurors had been discharged for the weekend, juror no. 2 began an argument on the sidewalk outdoors the courthouse.
Juror no. 2 referred to as juror no. 4 “racist,” in line with the word.
“On Friday, February 14th, at 4:15, as I was outside heading through the crosswalk outside of the Court building, Juror number 2… yelled for me as he was coming down the last three steps,” the word from juror no. 4 acknowledged. “He eventually caught up to me on the sidewalk across the street and continued a confrontation that started during deliberation.
“On the sidewalk, it turned into more than words and moved to threats,” juror no. 4 wrote. “He continued to provoke me and was trying to start a physical altercation, which I began to walk away from. He got back in front of me when I was near some other gentlemen, who were on the corner. He called me a racist in front of them and continued to provoke me. It was now a four-on-one situation of continued threats. I quickly walked away and was not pursued.”
The decide performed a voir dire with juror no. 2, juror no. 4, and the foreperson. Juror no. 2 confirmed that he had accused juror no. 4 of being racist.
Juror no. 2 defined that he “did not assume (juror no. 4) was a racist based on one statement… there were other statements and incidences (sic) within the deliberations.”
Juror no. 4 corroborated juror no. 2’s telling of the interplay outdoors the courthouse, and mentioned he believed that juror no. 2 wished to combat him.
Whereas the jurors mentioned they may stay neutral, the prosecutor prompt that each juror no. 4 and juror no. 2 be discharged, because of the “allegations of racism and threats of physical violence.”
The prosecutor additionally raised the likelihood that different members of the jury could have been affected by the dispute between the 2 jurors, which started within the deliberation room.
The decide finally determined to not discharge both juror no. 2 or juror no. 4. The decide reinstructed the jury about impartiality earlier than they started their second day of deliberations.
“You are to be completely fair and impartial,” the decide instructed the jurors. “You are not to be swayed by prejudice or by sympathy, by personal likes or dislikes, towards either side. You are to consider the evidence in a calm, dispassionate, and analytical manner.”
Later that very same day, the jury returned a responsible verdict of homicide within the second diploma.
Vasquez appealed the decision, and the Appeals Court docket affirmed his conviction. Then his attraction went as much as the Supreme Judicial Court docket, which has tossed the conviction.
“Because juror no. 2 provided information ‘reasonably suggesting’ that juror no. 4 openly espoused racist views during the deliberative process, the failure to fully investigate the allegation of racial bias was an abuse of discretion,” the SJC wrote, later including, “It is clear that the judge attempted to walk what we have noted is a delicate line, but more was required here.”
“Simply put, the circumstances here… establish too great a risk to bear that a juror was racially biased against the defendant and openly shared such views with his fellow jurors while deliberating on the defendant’s guilt or innocence,” the SJC wrote. “As such, we must conclude that the incident created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.”
Initially Printed:
