Latest news with #jurytrial
Associated Press
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
North Carolina court says it's OK to swap jurors while they are deliberating
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina's highest court on Friday left intact a murder conviction that a lower appeals court had thrown out on the grounds that a jury shake-up during deliberations violated the defendant's rights and required a new trial. By a 5-2 decision, the state Supreme Court reversed last year's decision of a state Court of Appeals panel that had sided with Eric Ramond Chambers, who has been serving a sentence of life in prison without parole. The state constitution says no one can be convicted of a crime except by 'the unanimous verdict of a jury in open court' that state justices have declared in the past repeatedly must be composed of 12 people. A 2021 state law says an alternate juror can be substituted for one of the 12 after deliberations begin as long as the judge instructs the amended jury to begin deliberations anew. The judge at Chambers' 2022 trial did just that when an alternate juror joined deliberations because an original juror couldn't continue the next day due to a medical appointment. The original 12 had deliberated for less than 30 minutes the day before. Chambers, who was representing himself in the trial, was not in the courtroom when the substitution occurred. By midday the reconstituted jury had reached a verdict, and Chambers was convicted of first-degree murder and a serious assault charge for the 2018 shooting in a Raleigh motel room. Chambers petitioned the Court of Appeals, which later ruled that his right to a 'properly constituted jury' had been violated and the 2021 law couldn't supersede the state constitution because 13 people had reached the verdict. State attorneys then appealed. Writing for Friday's majority, Chief Justice Paul Newby said the 2021 law doesn't violate Chamber's right because it provides 'critical safeguards that ensure that the twelve-juror threshold remains sacrosanct.' Newby wrote the law says no more than 12 jurors can participate in the jury's deliberations and that a judge's instruction to begin deliberations anew means 'any discussion in which the excused juror participated is disregarded and entirely new deliberations are commenced by the newly-constituted twelve.' The four other justices who are registered Republicans joined Newby in his opinion. In a dissenting opinion to retain the new trial, Associate Justice Allison Riggs wrote the 2021 law is an unconstitutional departure from the concept of 12-member juries and 'endangers the impartiality and unanimity of the jury.' No matter what directions a trial judge gives to jurors to begin deliberations anew, Riggs added, 'we must assume by law that the original juror's mere presence impacted the verdict.' Associate Justice Anita Earls — who with Riggs are the court's two registered Democrats — also dissented.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Yahoo
UPDATE: Page guilty on all counts
May 16—LIMA — As jury trials go, the case of Leroy Page had more than its share of peculiarities. From allegations of juror tampering to Page serving as his own attorney to a reported bribe offered by the defendant to the alleged victims in the case, the trial inched toward its apparent conclusion on Friday. Jurors received the case late Friday afternoon and deliberated well into the evening before returning guilty verdicts against Page on all eight felony charges and specifications he faced. Page, 34, was charged in Allen County Common Pleas Court with having weapons under disability, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, aggravated burglary, two counts of kidnapping and two counts of felonious assault in connection with incidents that occurred on Oct. 30, 2022. He was found guilty of kidnapping and assaulting two Allen County homeowners that night after crashing his vehicle in their front yard while eluding police. Testimony from law enforcement officers revealed Page crashed a vehicle he was driving — after leading Lima police officers on a pursuit that prosecutors say exceeded 120 miles per hour — in a field near the intersection of West Elm Street and Fraunfelter Road. Benjamin and Dianna Shelton, who live near the crash scene, testified that Page broke into their home and terrorized them for several hours before demanding they drive him to a Shawnee Township location. The Sheltons, during their respective times on the witness stand, each identified Page as their attacker. Dianna Shelton told jurors on Wednesday she suffered multiple facial fractures, a broken nose, a concussion, severely lacerated lip and other bruises at the hands of Page. Jurors viewed photos taken at a Lima hospital that showed the bruising and swelling the woman sustained in the attack. The assaults were alleged to have taken place in the couple's bedroom. Shelton said Page struck her and her husband repeatedly over a span of several hours before forcing them to drive him to the intersection of Breese and Yoakam roads in Shawnee Township, near what police reportedly knew to be Page's residence. His own lawyer Page, who served as his own attorney throughout the trial, took the stand Friday as the trial's final witness. His version of the events of Oct. 30, 2022, mirrored earlier statements from police officers who had described events leading up to the time of the crash. But at that point Page's story diverged greatly from what jurors have previously heard. The defendant told jurors he entered the Shelton's garage and did not force entry into the home or enter the living quarters at the residence, as had been alleged. Page testified that while inside the Shelton's garage he negotiated with the couple and agreed to make a cash payment to them of $15,000 for their silence to law enforcement. He denied striking the couple. The defendant said the Sheltons agreed to drive him to the area of Red Bud Lane in Shawnee Township and waited while he ran to a home to get money. Page testified an associate returned to the Shelton's Dodge Ram pickup a short time later with $6,200 — all the money Page said was in the house — and that the Sheltons then drove away. Page's DNA was found in the rear seat of the pickup truck, evidence revealed. A search warrant was executed at a home on Red Bud Lane later that morning, but Page was not located. He fled the area and was arrested nearly two years later in Las Vegas. 'David vs. Goliath' In his closing remarks to jurors, Page referred to his case as "David vs. Goliath." He intimated that prosecutors had withheld evidence in the case that would have benefited him and accused the Sheltons of lying from the witness stand. He also hinted at racism, suggesting that some jurors could be wondering to themselves why a white couple would lie against a Black defendant. "If you're thinking that way you've already decided your verdict," Page said. "There was a lot of evidence that wasn't presented. I just ask that you pay attention to small details. They matter.," Page asked of jurors. "In America you're innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes you have to prove your innocence." Prosecuting Attorney Destiny Caldwell told jurors the state had presented evidence sufficient for conviction on all counts. She said that any "negotiations" between Benjamin Shelton and Page were nothing more than a diversionary tactic "to keep the defendant calm." Caldwell said there was "no question" the Sheltons suffered serious physical harm "and there's no doubt it was this defendant who caused that harm." Juror saga updated On Thursday it was learned that two jurors in the case believed they had been followed home the previous evening. The jurors said they were concerned but could still be fair and impartial. They remained on the jury. A follow-up was offered Friday. Kohlrieser said representatives of the Lima Police Department investigated the allegations and learned that the driver of one of the two suspicious vehicles lived within a few blocks of the juror in question. Police were able gain information about the second vehicle, including its owner, but said that person had no apparent relationships with anyone connected with the trial. Page told the judge he believed the jury had been "tainted" by the drama and asked for a mistrial. Kohlrieser overruled that motion. Featured Local Savings
News.com.au
17-05-2025
- News.com.au
Sean ‘Diddy' Combs accused of aiding son in assaulting a woman
Sean 'Diddy' Combs and his son Christian are demanding a jury trial after the rapper's eldest child was accused of sexually assaulting a woman on a yacht chartered by the rapper. The pair were named in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles in April last year by plaintiff Grace O'Marcaigh. The former yacht stewardess alleged Christian 'King' Combs physically and sexually assaulted her and claimed his father, who is named as a co-defendant, aided the attack. The U.S. Sun has obtained a new court filing this month which shows Combs, 55, and his son, 27, are not looking at settling the case any time soon. The document, dated May 8, stated: 'Defendants Christian Combs and Sean Combs hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable.' They are both being represented by a team of attorneys from Summa LLP based in South Pasadena, California. Filings also show they now have until May 30 to file an official response to the lawsuit and Judge Dolly M. Gee has been assigned to the case. Aaron Dyer, an lawyer for Sean and Christian Combs, previously told CNN that they believe the lawsuit contains 'manufactured lies and irrelevant facts,' and said they were seeking to 'dismiss this outrageous claim.' The update comes as Combs is on trial in Manhattan federal court facing charges related to sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and is being supported by his family, including Christian, who has been seen at court in New York this week. In the 33-page civil suit, O'Marcaigh alleged she was 25 when she was working on a superyacht called 'Victorious' in December 2022 when Combs leased it. She claimed the disgraced music mogul 'had full control of the staff and premises of the yacht' over the holiday period. The suit alleged: 'During the second week of the charter service, there was a significant amount of partying and drug use, which caused the guests to stay up throughout the night. 'The make-up of the yacht quickly evolved from just Defendant S. Combs and his family to include a constant rotation of suspected sex workers and other A-list celebrities such as French Montana and actor Cuba Gooding, Jr.' The stars have not been accused of any wrongdoing. O'Marcaigh claimed Combs 'turned what was sold as a wholesome family excursion into a hedonistic environment.' 'Staff was often treated with disrespect, suspected sex workers were sprawled out unconscious about the yacht, and it was difficult to distinguish which bottles of alcohol were laced with drugs and which bottles were not,' the suit went on. The former stewardess claimed staff on the boat were encouraged to drink, and on one occasion she was asked by Christian to sit next to him which she deemed 'inappropriate'. He allegedly became 'aggressive,' grabbed her by the arm, and began hurting her as he demanded she do a shot of tequila, after which he begged her to do more. 'Plaintiff was quite scared and realised she was in a very dangerous situation,' the suit claims. 'Plaintiff was also feeling the effect of the tequila shots and quickly suspected that the tequila was spiked. 'At this point, the situation escalated, and Plaintiff started to be physically assaulted by Defendant C. Combs. 'He touched Plaintiff's legs, breasts, anus, and vagina. 'He also tried to kiss her and proceeded to kiss her neck, face, and hands.' Rodney Jones, a record producer who separately filed a $30 million sexual assault and sexual harassment lawsuit against Combs, allegedly recorded all of the party. A supposed transcript of an audio recording from a makeshift studio on the yacht is included in the filing. O'Marcaigh allegedly said to Christian, 'You are drugging me?' and 'Excuse me, you don't touch my legs like that. I'll move my legs where I want to.' Christian then allegedly demanded she find him a place to sleep on the yacht and she suggested the cinema room as there were no spare cabins available. The suit claimed: 'The cinema has one door to exit and enter. Plaintiff entered the room, and Defendant C. Combs blocked her from exiting. 'Plaintiff retreated to a corner of the room, and Defendant C. Combs became physical and extremely aggressive. He cornered Plaintiff and started to grope her. Plaintiff pushed him back constantly. 'Defendant C. Combs then took off all of his clothes. His penis was erect, and he grabbed her arms and was trying to force Plaintiff to perform oral copulation on him. 'The Plaintiff began fighting Defendant C. Combs, and not long after, her partner on board entered the cinema.' The suit claims this 'startled' her alleged attacker and she was finally able to flee. The next day, O'Marcaigh alleged she complained to the ship's captain but she was not taken seriously and Combs and his family gave a generous tip. The lawsuit accuses Combs of orchestrating a cover-up, stating, 'Only a few members of the ship's staff were required to write statements. 'Plaintiff and her partner were the only two staff members not interviewed and not asked to write a statement.' The lawsuit included photographic evidence of bruises on O'Marcaigh's forearm that she alleges were inflicted by Christian. O'Marcaigh was 'isolated and retaliated against' after making the complaint and was later terminated on or around May 10, 2023, according to the complaint. O'Marcaigh suffered anxiety and panic attacks, developed an eating disorder, and even thought about ending her own life, the suit claimed.
Telegraph
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
First-time offenders may lose right to jury trial, minister hints
People accused of lower level crimes such as shoplifting and drug possession for the first time could lose their right to being tried by a jury, a justice minister has indicated. Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, said it was a 'big question' being considered by the Government's independent review of the criminal courts whether such first-time offenders should continue to have a right to jury trial. The review, headed by Sir Brian Leveson, the High Court judge, is expected to recommend that all people accused of offences such as some thefts, drug possession and assaults will no longer be able to opt for a jury trial as part of a 'once-in-a-generation' shake up of the court system to reduce record backlogs and delays. But he is under pressure to allow some exceptions for those accused of a first offence who might, for example, have simply forgotten to pay for a shopping item but would be denied the chance to try to clear their names in front of a jury of their peers – with the consequences of a conviction potentially career-ending. 'That's going to be a big question for Sir Brian,' said Ms Sackman, who suggested that any defendant would – and should – get a fair trial irrespective of whether it was before a jury in a Crown Court or magistrates. 'Ultimately, the duty of the state is to ensure a fair trial, and there is no evidence to suggest that when it comes either to rates of conviction, or in terms of sentencing practice, any differential between the magistrates or the sorts of justice one gets in the Crown Court,' she told Joshua Rozenberg, a solicitor and leading legal commentator, on his podcast, A Lawyer Talks. 'There actually ought to not to be any differential in terms of the quality of the justice that that individual receives, whether that's in the magistracy or in front of the Crown Court, and indeed, for that individual, quick resolution, getting an outcome is actually the real prize. 'Because where cases are taking two or three years to come to court and having knock-on effects for the trial of other crimes such as rape or murder, that truly, in my view, becomes corrosive of the fairness of our entire justice process.' Ms Mahmood has commissioned Sir Brian to review ways in which defendants' rights to jury trials could be scaled back without undermining fair justice. This could see magistrates hearing more serious cases, some defendants losing the right to ask for their case to be tried before a jury and the creation of a new intermediate court, which would replace a jury with one judge and two magistrates. The right to a jury trial extends back to the 13th century, and ministers are adamant that serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assaults – including rape – assault causing grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary and arson with intent will still be tried before their peers in crown court. Ms Sackman also suggested there could be judge-only trials for complex fraud cases, regulatory and environment crimes where there are large amounts of expert evidence. 'All options are on the table,' said Ms Sackman. 'We'll have to see if Sir Brian regards any of those as suitable candidates for a judge trial.' She said the current backlog – where, for example, rape victims were waiting two to three years for justice – was unsustainable. 'The old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, rings true in this case,' she said. 'What we're talking about here is, how do we get swifter justice for victims, better value for the taxpayer, and indeed, for those who are accused of a crime that they may not have committed, ensuring that they're not prolonged in that state of limbo. 'The reclassification of offences would mean taking a cohort of cases out of the Crown Court into the magistrates where they'd be tried as summary only offences. To give you some context, some 90 per cent of cases are currently tried without a jury in the magistrates' court.' She added: 'When people are waiting for years for their day in court, for justice to be done, that ultimately deprives that person of a fair trial. And it's not just unfair to the individual, it's actually corrosive of our entire system and confidence.'
The Guardian
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Putting up a defence for jury trials in Britain
Simon Jenkins' indictment of jury trial (Here's a radical way to save England's collapsing justice system: get rid of juries, 5 May) deserves a damning verdict on a number of counts. He points to the excessive delays afflicting English criminal courts, which he attributes to the 1% of cases that are decided by juries. He provides little evidence for this, while making no mention of the true causes – Covid and chronic underfunding. There is no evidence that jury trial causes delay in contested cases as opposed to judges sitting alone. Judges would have to provide reasoned arguments for each factual decision (subject to review) and, for this reason, the vast majority of British criminal judges strongly favour jury trial. Jenkins adds that we should join 'the rest of Europe' and end jury trial, without telling us what systems those countries enjoy and whether they are to be emulated. Yet the inquisitorial system in, say, France, with its many complications including dual investigation by examining justices, is subject to horrendous delays, historically far worse than their adversarial equivalent in the UK. Jenkins attributes jury trial to a 'medieval hangover, judgment by one's peers, over the whim of an unelected manorial lord or other authority' as though this were undesirable. In fact, it is far more likely to originate in an adversarial democratic culture inherent in British history and observable in parliament. But the greatest concern is the absence of any mention of the libertarian value of jury trials in an increasingly totalitarian world. As one of Britain's greatest jurists, Lord Patrick Devlin, observed: 'The first object of any tyrant would be to overthrow or diminish trial by jury. It is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.'Bob Marshall-Andrews KC Labour MP for Medway, 1997-2010 Simon Jenkins' article struck a strong chord with me. Having served on two juries, I am less than impressed. How are you meant to have a sensible discussion in the jury room without a transcript of the trial proceedings? Your only written record is whatever you can write in pencil on a sheet of paper, despite the fact that an official record is being taken. You are given no advice about how to run the jury proceedings, presumably because English yeomen all know intuitively how to do this. Not every member wants to be there, and some members' contributions can be negligible. For my first trial there were six charges, all related. For one charge, evidence from the victim indicated the rough date of the alleged offence quite accurately. It was revealed at a different point in the proceedings, and I noted this on my bit of paper, that the accused was in prison at the time. Despite this, the accused was convicted by 11 to one. I have also had to sit through the verbatim acting out of a police interview, where the prosecution barrister played the accused and the police interviewer played himself. The jury room may well be little more than a glorified broom cupboard. On my second trial, I was encouraged when I saw a whiteboard, which I thought would be quite useful. Naturally, the marker pens all needed replacing, and their replacements were highlighter and address supplied Simon Jenkins thinks that members of the public who serve on juries are incompetent to decide complicated factual issues. If he is right, then voting in elections should also be left to FitzGibbon KCLondon Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
