Jury selection begins in packed courtroom for trial of murdered Maryland mother Rachel Morin
More than 120 potential jurors were questioned on Tuesday as attorneys prepare to make their cases in the high-profile trial in the murder of Rachel Morin, a mother of five, who was found raped and murdered off a Harford County trail in 2023.
Questions arose over whether the jury selection process had been handled constitutionally in the case against Victor Martinez-Hernandez, an undocumented migrant accused of Morin's murder.
Morin was found dead on August 6, 2023, a day after she left for a jog on the Ma & Pa Trail.
Martinez-Hernandez, who law enforcement said entered the country illegally from El Salvador, was arrested in June 2024 at a bar in Tulsa, Oklahoma, after a 10-month nationwide manhunt.
The Sixth Amendment states that a defendant has a right to a public trial.
The Harford County courtroom was at capacity during jury selection on Tuesday -- with potential jurors, attorneys, the judge, interpreters, and court officials.
However, due to capacity concerns, neither the media nor members of the public were allowed to enter the courtroom.
Since this is an open trial, Judge Yolanda Curtin allowed deputies to open the doors to the courtroom so people could listen in from the hall.
Following a lunch break, jurors were individually questioned, which happened behind closed doors.
In previous cases, the public was allowed to observe individual juror questioning with accommodations made to conceal sensitive information.
In a 1992 Maryland ruling in the case of Watters v State, a similar situation was called into question, and it was ruled that the defendant's right to a public trial was violated.
WJZ asked Maryland defense attorney Eric Bacaj if this process in the jury selection has been constitutional.
"The general questioning of the pool under Maryland law should be open to the public and the then Court of Appeals Supreme, now the Supreme Court of Maryland. held in the Watters case that the denial of the public's right to be present during the generalized questioning and in that case, throughout the entirety of voir dire, was a reason to grant a new trial," Bacaj said. "Closing the courtroom for the second portion, which is that individualized questioning, which is often done with that white noise in the background so no one can hear anyway, I don't think closing the courtroom for that purpose would have any problems."
A statement from the head of government affairs for the Maryland Judiciary said that the courtroom was not closed to the media or public, but mostly due to safety concerns and overcapacity.
"The courtroom was, however, filled to capacity, and individuals were not allowed access to the courtroom due to safety and fire code concerns," the Maryland Judiciary said. "The Maryland Judiciary is currently working with the Circuit Court for Harford County to designate a space to accommodate media outlets. Challenges of space and resources, however, arise when working with smaller courthouses."
During the open portion to the public, nearly 63% of the potential jurors responded yes when asked if they had strong feelings about allegations of sexual assault, rape and murder.
They were also asked if they are comfortable viewing graphic images of the crime scene and evidence, and if they have any bias toward someone taking the stand who needs a language interpreter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Gun violence victims live on through art, exhibit comes to the Midstate
DAUPHIN COUNTY, Pa. (WHTM) — While it is on the decrease since the pandemic, gun violence continues to be an ongoing issue across the Commonwealth. An issue — the Shapiro-Davis administration has worked to decrease since being elected to office by providing additional resources to law enforcement, investing in community programs and through art. 'I'm excited to view the artwork that's on display here,' said Lt. Governor Austin Davis at the State library in Harrisburg Tuesday for the opening of the Souls Shot Portrait Project. This project was started in 2016 and raises awareness for victims of gun violence through art. 'Art provides a platform for survivors and advocates to share their truths in deeply personal and impactful ways,' said Ashley Walkowiak, the Executive Director of the Governor's Advisory Commission on Women. The project pairs fine artists with families who have lost loved ones to gun violence. 'The artist meets and talks to the families. They look at pictures. They share stories,' explained Aubrey Fink, the projects Associate Director. 'Then the artist creates a portrait in their memory, honoring their life, focusing on what brought them joy, their connections, their aspirations.' Harrisburg restaurants react to Food Allergy Safety Legislation One of the people highlighted through this project — Destiny Sistrunk's older brother, Justin who was shot and killed in Philadelphia in 2009. 'He was only 20 years old unfortunately when he passed away,' Sistrunk said. 'He was an amazing guy; he was funny, happy, jolly, a real like a 'guys guy'.' Sistrunk told abc27 News, it means a lot to have her brother's portrait on display in Pennsylvania's Capital city. 'We have to end gun violence and all violence,' she added. 'No one is as bad or as good as their worst moment. So, I think that people need to realize, you know, whatever you're arguing about, whatever issue you may have with somebody, it's never deep enough to end the life and we're going to continue to prevent gun violence until it's no longer here.' That's the goal of the Shapiro Davis administration. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'I got my start in public service because of the issue of gun violence,' Lt. Governor Davis shared. 'I ran for office because I wanted to make Pennsylvania's communities safer. It often gets framed as a Philadelphia problem or a Pittsburgh problem, but I want to be clear, gun violence is not the Pittsburgh problem. It's not a Philadelphia problem. It's a Pennsylvania problem. And it's uniquely an American problem that we can, and we must do something about.' The public is invited to view the Souls Shot Portrait Project at the State library. It will be on display until the end of the month. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit.
First the government seized Kenneth Michael Sikorsky's home and all of its equity over a tax debt worth far less than what it took. Now a federal court has ruled that Sikorsky has successfully stated a claim for a taking—an early sign that the legal landscape is shifting since the Supreme Court weighed in on these sorts of seizures two years ago. In 2012, the city of Newburgh, New York, foreclosed on Sikorsky's house after he fell behind on his property taxes. The parties were later able to broker an agreement that allowed him to repurchase the home for the price of his outstanding debt. But he was unable to satisfy those regular installments, prompting the city to cancel the sale. The government later found another buyer who could pay much more than the value of Sikorsky's debt, which with penalties, interest, and fees stood at $92,786.24. The sale went through in June 2021 for $350,500. The city then pocketed the profit: $257,713.76. Sikorsky is far from the first person to experience this nightmare scenario. But his case coincided with a petition that would upend the practice nationwide. Geraldine Tyler argued that the practice was unconstitutional after Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized her Minneapolis condo over a modest tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit. This worked its way through the court system until 2023, when the Supreme Court sided with Tyler. "A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the unanimous Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more." The decision centered around the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which says the government cannot take private property without providing "just compensation." So foreclosing on a property to collect a debt is constitutional, but pocketing the profit is not. Sikorsky's suit made it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York shortly after that ruling. Sounds like perfect timing, yet the court ruled against him. But now the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that he can, in fact, sue for his equity under the Takings Clause, resuscitating his suit and sending it back to the district court for review. While the high court ruled the practice unconstitutional, several states—including Arizona, Alabama, New Jersey, and Sikorsky's home of New York—responded by passing labyrinthine debt collection statutes that seek to technically comply with the law while simultaneously making it difficult for property owners to collect their surplus equity. Michigander Chelsea Koetter, for example, lost her house in 2021 over a $3,863.40 tax debt. Manistee County, Michigan, then auctioned it off and kept the $102,636 profit. But the state's supreme court had already ruled the practice illegal in 2020—after which the Legislature approved a debt-collection law that sends owners on an obstacle course should they want to get their leftover equity back. Koetter, according to her complaint, submitted a form 8 days late, which the government said justified its decision to keep her six figures of equity. In Sikorsky's case, New York's new statute applies only to people whose properties were sold on or after May 25, 2023, so he will get to proceed under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution instead. But future plaintiffs who lose everything after falling on hard times may find it much harder to recover their money. The post He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit. appeared first on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
California asks court for restraining order to block Guard, Marine deployments in L.A.
California on Tuesday asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's deployment of both state National Guard forces and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid mass protests over sweeping federal immigration enforcement efforts. The request was filed in the same federal lawsuit the state and California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed Monday, in which they alleged Trump had exceeded his authority and violated the U.S. Constitution by sending military forces into an American city without the request or approval of the state governor or local officials. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office is handling the litigation on behalf of both Newsom and the state, said the restraining order was necessary to bring an immediate stop to the deployments, which local officials have contended are not needed and only adding to tensions sparked by sweeping immigration detentions and arrests in communities with large immigrant communities. "The President is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him," Bonta said in a statement Tuesday. "It's not just immoral — it's illegal and dangerous." Newsom, in his own statement, echoed Bonta, saying the federal government "is now turning the military against American citizens." "Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy," Newsom said. "Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President." The state's request Tuesday asked for the restraining order to be granted by 1 p.m. Tuesday "to prevent immediate and irreparable harm" to the state. Absent such relief, the Trump administration's "use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest," the state contended. The request specifically notes that the use of military forces such as Marines to conduct domestic policing tasks is unlawful, and that Trump administration officials have stated that is how the Marines being deployed to Los Angeles may be used. "The Marine Corps' deployment for law enforcement purposes is likewise unlawful. For more than a century, the Posse Comitatus Act has expressly prohibited the use of the active duty armed forces and federalized national guard for civilian law enforcement," the state's request states. "And the President and Secretary Hegseth have made clear—publicly and privately—that the Marines are not in Los Angeles to stand outside a federal building." At Trump's direction, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mobilized nearly 2,000 members of the state's National Guard on Saturday after Trump said L.A. was descending into chaos and federal agents were in danger, then mobilized another 2,000 members on Monday. The Pentagon approved the deployment of 700 U.S. Marines from the base in Twentynine Palms to the city Monday, with the stated mission of protecting federal buildings and agents. Hegseth said the deployments would last 60 days, and the acting Pentagon budget chief said the cost would be at least $134 million. He told members of the House appropriations defense subcommittee that the length of the deployments was intended to "ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere." Local officials have decried acts of violence, property damage and burglaries that have occurred in tandem with the protests, but have also said that Trump administration officials have blown the problems out of proportion and that there is no need for federal forces in the city. Read more: All of L.A. is not a 'war zone.' We separate facts from spin and disinformation amid immigration raids Constitutional scholars and some members of Congress have also questioned the domestic deployment of military forces, especially without the buy-in of local and state officials — calling it a tactic of dictators and authoritarian regimes. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass questioned what Marines would do on the ground, while Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the arrival of military forces in the city without "clear coordination" with local law enforcement "presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us tasked with safeguarding this city." Bonta had said Monday that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits federal power around such deployments, that the deployment of National Guard forces to quell protests without Newsom's consent was "unlawful" and "unprecedented," and that the deployment of Marines would be "similarly unlawful." On Tuesday, he said the state was asking the court to "immediately block the Trump Administration from ordering the military or federalized national guard from patrolling our communities or otherwise engaging in general law enforcement activities beyond federal property." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
