Uncle on Trial: Judge Declares Mistrial in David Prevatte's Case After Jury Misconduct

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: With regard to the defendant's motion for mistrial, the court makes the following findings of fact. At the outset of today, we had a report from one of the jurors that seems to have opened Pandora's box into what has been occurring during this jury deliberation. Juror number two indicated that juror number three had made statements regarding defendant not being a member of the KKK, defendant's relationship with a girlfriend, saying that she knows things, Pender, the biggest case that has hit Pender County in a long time, defendant was blackballed in town, that those statements were heard by all the jury members accepting jurors number one and number seven. At that particular time, the court did inquire, as to those jurors that did hear the information, whether they could disregard the comments, remain fair and impartial, render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom. At that point, the court was satisfied that the defendant could receive a fair and impartial trial. Then, juror number seven, after juror number three had been dismissed, indicated that there was some additional information for the court to consider regarding these jury deliberations. Juror number seven, indicated that juror number three had attempted to stop juror number five from discussing outside information, discussing outside information, and that juror number two had mentioned defendant has a rap sheet longer than the table, and juror number three told juror number two to stop talking. After inquiry, juror number five indicated that they had heard something of what juror number two had stated regarding the rap sheet. Juror number seven, obviously, and then juror number three also reported before being excused potential information regarding juror number two. Juror number nine then provided additional information about juror number four, stating that juror number four had said the authority is known to the defendant and he's been around. Juror number five. Juror number five. Juror number 11 indicated that she might have heard that but wasn't sure, maybe a three on a scale of one to ten. So, required of juror number four that she did in fact say those things. It was very apparent to the court that she was lying when she said no. If the court removes additionally jurors number two and number four along with juror number three are already being stricken. there were five jurors. Juror number one, six, eight, ten, and twelve who indicated that they did not hear anything from any juror whether that was two or four or anybody else about any law enforcement interactions. So, that leaves five, seven, nine, and eleven that did. Juror number five indicated yes to the rap sheet and also indicated that they had heard most of what juror number three had discussed. Juror number seven indicated no as to anything that juror number three had discussed. Juror number nine said yes as to some of what juror number three had discussed. The additional information of what jurors numbers two and four discussed compounded the issue. After review of the case law and statute general statute 15a 1061 mistrial for prejudice to the defendant states The judge must declare a mistrial upon the defendant's motion if there occurs during the trial an error or legal effect in the proceedings or conduct inside or outside the courtroom resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant's case State v. Galbraith G. A. L. B. R. E. A. T. H Court of Appeals Case 295 N. C. App 523 Whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the judge. When investigating possible juror misconduct trial court is vested with the discretion to determine the procedure and scope of the inquiry. We've gone through a very lengthy inquiry of all the jurors multiple times during the course of this day. Because the trial court is in the best position to examine the facts and circumstances, We give great weight to its determination of whether juror misconduct occurred and whether to declare a mistrial. A mistrial is a drastic remedy warranted only for such serious improprieties as it would make it impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict. So I think that if we were to set aside what juror number three had said, it already indicated that we would be able to proceed prior to the floodgates of all the other information, That would leave jurors 5, 9, and 11 having heard at least some information of the secondary portion during our inquiry this afternoon. The court concluded in the exercise of my discretion that there has been serious improprieties by this jury, such that it would be impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict. They declare that this case is mistrial. This is not conduct on behalf of the state, such that jeopardy attaches. Jeopardy does not attach to the defendant. This is conduct by the jury members themselves. Nothing that the state has done or the defense suggests that either party is at fault with regard to this issue. I feel like both parties have done a fair job in conducting this trial. We all have avoided any instances of improprieties and I think that the issue lies with the jury. Therefore, the court finds that jeopardy does not attach and the matter may be retried at a later date. Anything you wish to say, Mr. Smith? Not from the state, Judge, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Britt. No, sir, not a lot of those lines. I think that given my decision with juror number three, not to find juror number three in contempt. I will likewise not find jurors number two or number four in contempt. I will indicate to both of them outside the presence of the others that it is based on their conduct, as well as conduct of juror number three as to why we have a mistrial, but not allow them to debate the issue. So what we'll do is bring in all the jury members. I'll indicate that the court has declared a mistrial based on jury misconduct and that they are all relieved from their jury duties. I'll excuse all of the jury members accepting two and four. As soon as the remaining jury members have cleared, then I'll address two and four with regard to their conduct. Anything else we need to discuss on behalf of the state? [00:11:17] Speaker 2: Not from the state, Judge. [00:11:18] Speaker 1: On behalf of the defense? [00:11:22] Speaker 2: When is the next administration session? Tomorrow. Judge, that has to be put on November admin session because Judge Harrell will be setting our priority trial calendar for next year that very afternoon. [00:11:35] Speaker 1: Okay. Matter is set over to November 13th. Is that accurate? November 13th. Judge, I'd ask that the bond remain the same. All right. Mr. Britt regarding bond. I was inquiring about the admin session so I could file a bond motion. Okay. The bond will remain the same until such a point as you file a motion for bond. [00:11:57] Speaker 2: Okay. [00:11:57] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you.