Defense in Miami shootout trial claims juror misconduct

WATERLOO, IOWA –The Miami judge in Damon Darling’s trial is considering a defense motion to interview the jurors who convicted him of manslaughter and aggravated assault last month to determine if there was juror misconduct. The motion, filed two weeks by attorney Jonathan Meltz, also requests that the three alternates be interviewed. The State has not responded, yet, to the motion.

Damon Darling

Darling was convicted of manslaughter in the shooting death of nine-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins and the aggravated assault of Leroy Larose. Darling and Larose shot at each other in a Miami housing project. One of Darling’s bullets from the AK-47 he fired struck Jenkins in the neck and killed her almost immediately. She died in front of her mother.

The day after the jury’s October 8, 2008 verdict, Meltz received an anonymous call at his office from a man. His receptionist spoke to the man and took notes about his message. The caller said that juror “number 27, John, and Jesse” (another juror was Jesse Glass) were lifelong friends. He also said that John said they were going to “convict whomever was being judged.” It’s unclear when that statement was made—before or after the verdict—but that’s what the defense wants to explore. The caller, who was correct that juror John was number 27, may have been an alternate. If so, it’s possible the statement was made before jurors began deliberations. That could constitute misconduct as it would be a violation of the court’s instruction that there be no discussion or prejudging of the case before jurors retire to deliberate. In the motion, the defense claims the two jurors “improperly formed a fixed opinion as to guilt before the close of evidence.”

Meltz’s investigator confirmed that the grandparents of juror Jesse Glass live next door to juror Jonathan Hicks. Thus, it’s possible that the caller was correct that John and Jesse know each other. If they are friends, they did not disclose it at jury selection, though that fact, alone, is arguably harmless.

Meltz’s investigator also discovered that Jesse Glass was not truthful in one of his answers in the juror questionnaire. Question #11 states: “Have you, or a close friend or family member, ever been the victim of a crime? If so, describe briefly.” Glass’s response was “No.” In fact, on November 13, 2008, Glass was the victim of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (one of the same crimes Darling was convicted of) in Homestead, Florida. Meltz filed Glass’s questionnaire and the Homestead police report with his motion to interview jurors.

Jurors take two oaths during the selection and trial process. The first oath is to answer all questions truthfully. That’s the oath that applies to the questionnaire and any answers during voir dire. The second oath is taken when the final panel is selected where they swear or affirm that they will follow the law and the court’s instructions in deciding the case.

Judge Tinkler Mendez has ordered a presentence report for November 10 with sentencing of Darling to follow at some later time. She could grant this latest request for a hearing. If so, sentencing will be postponed while potential juror misconduct is investigated. The best case scenario for Darling is that he is ultimately granted a new trial. The best case scenario for the Jenkins family is that the motion is denied and Darling is sentenced to prison for decades. If the hearing is denied, the matter of juror misconduct could be an issue on appeal.

Beth Karas, In Session correspondent