The people both said they were relayed the comments by a colleague who works at the company.
The first person to speak to investigators later said that no one else was willing to speak because of concerns about losing their jobs due to the juror’s family member also working at the same company.
“He said that people are also being protected against actions by BLM [Black Lives Matter] or similar organizations if their names get out. Person #1 further added that if he is compelled to talk about the juror’s statements, he will now say that he does not know anything,” the motion states.
Investigators were able to connect with a second employee who also recounted a colleague relaying that the juror “was talking about finding them guilty no matter what.” That person gave the first name of the the colleague, and investigators tracked the person down.
Juror Questioned
Defense lawyers raised the matter during the trial but had only spoken to the first person at the time.After lawyers raised it, U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker, who was overseeing the case, decided to conduct closed-door questioning of the juror. Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys were allowed in the room.
“It’s not like I have that on tape. It’s not like I have anybody saying that under oath, but we have information that came to the court that suggests you made statements like that as recently as Monday, which was before you became a juror, in connection with your place of work,” the judge said.
The juror said he didn’t make such statements and hadn’t spoken to colleagues about jury service beyond stating that he had jury duty.
In the new motion, attorneys for the defendants said the judge erred twice—first, in not letting them be present for the questioning, and second, in revealing that there was no concrete evidence backing the accusation.
“The Court correctly noted that it was the Defendant’s burden to show juror bias, but then denied the Defendants an opportunity to participate in the very hearing it held to determine whether such bias existed,” they said.
Judicial Interference
The lawyers also said a new trial is warranted because of frequent interruptions by Jonker, a George W. Bush appointee.Jonker suddenly imposed time limits on the defense for questioning of Kaleb Franks, who has pleaded guilty, after prosecutors had finished their questioning of Franks.
That violated the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights, according to the motion.
The limits were withdrawn several days later, after a slew of media reports about the unusual development.
Jonker also “repeatedly interjected with commentary regarding the quality of the defense evidence and questioning, the time it was taking defense counsel to complete questioning of witnesses, made sarcastic remarks about the trial continuing until Thanksgiving, referred to defense counsel’s questioning as ‘crap,’ and made other remarks that the Court itself has described as ‘dyspeptic,’” the motion reads.