Appeal for Retrial in State v. Meilin Schumann - Assignment Example

Open Memorandum: Appeal for retrial in State v. Meilin Schumann Question presented In so interacting with the juror in the restroom, did the encounter between the tainted juror and Trina Bateson create sufficient grounds as to substantiate the application for a retrial on the basis of i) improper conduct of Jeanne Ramsfield who is a member of the jury, ii) Ms. Schumann was prejudiced by the improper conduct, and iii) denying the appellant, Ms. Schuman her right to trial by an impartial jury; owing to the fact that Bateson was indeed a prosecution witness in the appeal proceedings and that her interaction with the juror could probably influence the outcome of the case against Ms. Schuman? Brief Answer Yes. A conviction can be appealed in cases where the defendant has reason to believe that the trial jury improperly conducted itself during the trial or during deliberations of the case in question. Jury misconduct constitutes improper contract between juror and witness as well as the use of drugs, alcohol or experiments during trials or trial deliberations. Any contact of a witness or lawyer with a juror is capable of breeding a sense of familiarity, creating presumption of prejudice and thus amounting appearance of absence of impartiality. Such claims are often deleterious to undecided court proceedings in a manner to warrant a retrial motion as illustrated in State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Phillip Paul Larocco, Defendant and Appellant, 742 P.2d 89, Utah 860172-CA (1987). Statement of facts According to the case presented before the court, Meilin Schumann was charged with second degree murder of her husband Edward Schumann for which she has since filed an appeal. Bothe the appellant and her late husband are natives of Utah and by the time of the alleged murder, they were living in Utah. Notwithstanding the ongoing court proceedings, it is factual to note that the chief homicide investigator in the mentioned case is Trina Bateson. It is also vital to record that our client, Ms. Schumann had offered her confession in the case wherein Bateson was a key witness and the tainted juror was a member of the presiding bench. During recess, Bateson and Ramsfield improperly communicated. According to Ms. Schumann, conversation was social in nature and went as follows, “I know I’m not allowed to talk to you about the case, and I won’t. But I’m just curious if you’re related to John Bateson, who graduated from North High School in the late 1980s.” Bateson laughed and ascertained that John Bateson was her brother. Ramsfield said that John was quite a well-known character at her high school and that they had been good friends. She asked what John was doing these days, and Bateson said that he was the head of a start-up technology firm in California. Ramsfield said she would love to get in touch with John and that maybe when the trial was over, she would call investigator Bateson to get her contact information. Bateson said that would be terrific and then they said goodbye. It sounded to our client Ms. Schumann as if Ramsfield then left the restroom. Based on the above facts, there was improper contact between a juror and witness in the case of State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent v Meilin Schumann, Appellant and Defendant. The interaction construed misconduct of the juror and thus creating presumption of prejudice (Hall, Grossman & Ely 2005). Moreover, the content of the conversation was of such a nature that the appellant Ms. Schumann believed it to be potentially influential on the juror’s assessment of the investigator’s testimony. As the appellant’s defense attorney, I moved for a retrial but the court failed to rule on my motion and called for briefs from the defense and the prosecution regarding the issue. Ms. Schumann is therefore appealing for a retrial because of improper communication between the prosecution witness and the juror. Discussion It is likely that Ms. Schumann will be granted a retrial motion in the appeal case on charges of second-degree murder of her husband Edward Schumann. In examining the claims of juror misconduct, the court questioned the tainted juror about the existence of such interaction with Trina Bateson. The juror admitted in affirmative, adding that the conversation thereon lasted for barely a minute. On the other hand, Bateson was also questioned over the same issue for which he concurred with Ms. Schumann’s version of the story. Considering the case presented before us, both witness and juror admitted the existence of the claimed interaction. What the court therefore endeavor to establish is whether the interaction thereon caused any presumption of prejudice, created appearance of impartiality and was potent of influencing Ramsfield’s judgment on the investigator’s testimony. If any of these facts are established, the court should grant Ms. Schumann a new trial (Cardozo 2009, 34). Taking into account the constitutional provision of the State of Utah, every citizen has a right to a legal counsel. Specifically, the [S]tate guarantees all convicts a right to be tried by an impartial jury as outlined in Utah Constitution, art. I, § 12 (Friesen 2009) as read with Glazier v. Cram, 71 Utah 465, 267 P. 188 (1928). Where such rights have been compromised in any way, the accused shall be justified to file for a retrial. Furthermore, Stale law of Utah demands that where such claims of impartiality have been established, the court ought to grant the claimant a retrial. It is on these bases that Ms. Schumann seeks to have a new trial of her case. In line with legal tradition, all jurors must be of credible character and true to the prevailing law of the land (Hopper 2008). Moreover, it is of mandatory expectation of the convict, public, observers, State that the jury shall conduct itself with due diligence as uphold its standing towards serving justice without favour or prejudice as held in State v. Durand,569 P.2d 1107 (Utah 1977). The court held that the interaction between the three jurors and the arresting officers, who were critical witnesses, in itself construed misconduct. Ibid. Thus, any act or conduct including interactions with any witness shall invalidate the impartiality of the jury unless such presumed prejudice can be rebutted (Bickmore 1998). Otherwise, the court shall bear the burden of prove to dismiss claims of improper conduct of its jurors. If the court cannot rebut the presumed prejudice and impropriety of the tainted juror, the law of Utah requires that it finds an alternative juror and grants a retrial. The matter was clarified in State v. Crank, 105 Utah [8] at 268, 141 P.2d 178, 194 (1943) where the court held that the juror must at all times behaviour in a manner not to portray suspicion (Neeley, Nesci & Schatz 2011). Conducts of such context shall be interpreted to improper in the eye of the law. In that light, Ramsfield’s interaction with the investigating witness was indeed tantamount to juror misconduct. Id. at.226. In the case of State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Stanley Pike, Defendant and Appellant, 712 P.2d 277 (Utah 1985), the court held that the mingling of jurors and prominent witnesses could not be condoned. The court further affirmed that such contact was capable of casting doubts and will continue to exist in the mind of the losing party and that of her allies as to whether or not he had a fair trial. Id. at 470, 267 P. at 190. From that perspective, Ms. Schumann holds a strong feel that interaction between Ramsfield and the prosecution witness could influence the juror’s professional discretional judgment of the witness credibility. It seems probable therefore that the outcome could be different as applied in State, v. Paul, 108 P.3d 730; 519 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (Utah 2005) According to facts presented in State v. Anderson, 65 Utah. 415, 238 P. 941, 942 (1925), the court held that improperly interaction whatsoever between critical witness with a jury is a fundamental ground for presumption of prejudice. Bearing that in mind, the court further ascertained that presumption of prejudice may occur even if the juror or witness is not perceptibly aware. As a result, rebutting such prejudice has always been difficult so as to completely restore the claimant’s confidence in the jury. It is also important to consider contents of the perceived improper communication between the tainted juror and Bateson. To starts with, it is clear that their interaction was more that incidental. This is because, both parties were aware of the fact that at no one time should a juror and witness interact. However, they went ahead to even have conversations relating to personal life. Id, at.943 (Utah 1925). If a juror and a State investigator; knowing well that their conduct could impair the credibility of court proceedings, ignores judicial principles to pursue personal interest with a witness, the conduct is substantial to create doubt over the impartiality of such juror. In State v. Anderson, 65 Utah. 415, 237 P. 941, 942 (1925), the prosecution witness and one of the jurors had driven themselves in the same car for the entire period of the hearing. Even though they swore not to have discussed any matter of the case, the court held that their conduct authored an appearance of absence of impartiality. In the apparent conversation, the juror established that John Bateson was indeed related to the prosecution witness. On the same note, the juror proposed to obtain contact information of the witness at the end of the trial in which they both formed part of the prosecution. As such, the talk seemed to have cultivated a sense of familiarity between the jury and the witness. Id, at.239. Such familiarity also construes the appearance of the absence of impartiality of the prosecution witness and juror, thus violating Utah Constitution, art. I, § 12 (Utah 1925). Conclusion In State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Phillip Paul Larocco, Defendant and Appellant, 742 P.2d 89, Utah 860172-CA (1987), the defendant claimed that one of the witnesses interacted with a juror during which the witnessed mentioned some facts of the proceeding. The court ruled that such utterance can probably trigger personal reflection in the mind of the juror in line with the evidence under consideration (Milan 2005). Likewise, when the Ramsfield has known that the prosecution witness therein was actually related to her long-time friend and that, she wanted to get in touch with John Bateson; it was probable that the juror would have wanted to sustain the already established mutual relations with the witness. As a result, the hope to obtain personal contact of Bateson and to later re-connect with John Bateson clearly implied reasonable presumption of prejudice, absence of impartiality and probable influence of judgment. The court therefore ought to grant Ms. Schumann a retrial motion in the deleterious case of appeal presented hitherto. Bibliography Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Cosimo, Inc. (2009), 34-180 Carlan Philip, Downey A. Ragan & Lisa Nored, Introduction to Criminal Law, Jones & Bartlett Learning (2011), 1-224. Charles L. Hopper, Utah code annotated 1953, Allen Smith Company (2008) vol.11. Friesen Jennifer, State constitutional law: litigating individual rights, claims, and defenses, LexisNexis, (2006) vol. 2. Glen Neeley, James Nesci & Jason Schatz, Utah Dui Defense: The Law and Practice, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, (2011), 218-45. Jean Bickmore White, The Utah State Constitution: a reference guide, Greenwood Publishing Group, (1998) vol.30, n.30. Kermit Hall, Joel B. Grossman & James W. Ely, The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Oxford University Press (2005), 2d 1156-93. Simons G. Milan, State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Phillip Paul Larocco, Defendant and Appellant, 742 P.2d 89, Utah 860172-CA (1987) Utah, State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Paul Christopher Allen, Defendant and Appellant, 2005 UT 11; 108 P.3d 730; 519 Utah Adv. Rep. 3; 2005 Utah LEXIS 22 (2005) Utah, State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Stanley Pike, Defendant and Appellant, 712 P.2d 277 Utah L.R (1985) Read More