home

Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed

Jurors, take note. Cameras are everywhere. Today you sit in judgment, tomorrow you may become the accused. Hopefully, this is an aberration.

The juror in the Prince William County murder trial swore to the judge that she had not bought any newspapers. The defense attorney swore that she had. T

Then came the videotape.

The attorney produced a surveillance tape from a 7-Eleven in Old Town Manassas showing juror Lindy L. Heaster buying a copy of The Washington Post and the Potomac News -- and the juror suddenly became the accused.

Circuit Court Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. threw out a murder conviction against Gerardo N. Lara Sr., the man Heaster had helped convict of killing his estranged wife. Alston found Heaster in contempt of court this week and indicated that she could be forced to pay the cost of the five-day trial. And yesterday, prosecutors said they are considering perjury charges against Heaster.

The Judge "hinted" the juror will receive jail time. And a big bill.

Exact figures were not available yesterday, but Robert L. Marsh, the court administrator, was under judge's orders to break down the cost of securing the jury. That alone cost $900. The jurors who were selected for the trial were paid $30 a day. Then there's the cost of the interpreters who attended the trial at a cost of $6 an hour over five days.

Marsh said it appears that Heaster also will be required to pay defense costs, which lawyers estimate at $25,000. Prosecutors say more bills from their office could follow, including lodging expenses incurred by the victim's five relatives who flew from Mexico City to attend the trial. Alston could order Heaster to spend 10 days in jail and pay a $250 fine for the contempt-of-court charge. She will be sentenced July 1. Lara will be retried, prosecutors said.

Ouch.

< Ken Lay Bank Fraud Trial Will Follow Enron Trial | The Filibuster and People of Faith >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:00:32 AM EST
    In NYC they really are everywhere. It's bizarre. Everyone is a film star.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:41:08 AM EST
    I understand the general concern over cameras - I especially dislike red light cameras. In this particular case, however, the juror in question did not live up to her responsibilities.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:18:21 AM EST
    Is serving on a jury now accepting that you will be subject to surveillance? Between that and the juror who got fined for yawning in court, it makes one wonder why anyone would serve on a jury without a fight. I can understand that the jurors could be told not to read the news of a trial, but there's a lot in a newpaper besides trial news. The Sports Section, for instance...

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:54:30 AM EST
    The camera sounds like it was a security camera at a 7/11. What's so Orwellian about that?

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 06:25:16 AM EST
    Now I know where they get all the Amature porn films!

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#6)
    by cp on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 07:20:05 AM EST
    her crime was lying about the purchase, not the purchase itself. as noted, newspapers carry much more than just articles about trials. she should have just told the truth, and nothing would have happened, in spite of the defense atty's argument to the contrary. he would have had a somewhat difficult time proving that she actually read anything about the trial, short of breaking into her home to observe her. i was on a jury, civil trial, not too very long ago. we received the same admonishment from the judge. it didn't stop me from reading the papers or watching the news, i just avoided or ignored anything about the issue at hand, of which there wasn't much anyway. hell, my wife didn't want to hear about it either! lol somehow, i doubt the outcome of a re-trial will be any different than the first time around, just a different jury. defense is buying time for his client. might be time to consider a plea bargain. however, this judge's response will, i think, make it that much harder to get people to serve. though i understand the feeling, shooting yourself in the foot, to spite your face, generally isn't a good idea.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 07:40:25 AM EST
    The camera sounds like it was a security camera at a 7/11. What's so Orwellian about that?
    The state got the tape.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#8)
    by Aaron on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 07:46:45 AM EST
    scott, how did the defense find out about the 7-11 purchase, if they did not have the juror under surveillance? A juror (particularly in a case with a high-cost defense) probably should assume that there will be some level of surveilance. (But the juror should obey the court order whether or not the juror expects to be caught.)

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#9)
    by nolo on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 07:55:19 AM EST
    The article describes how the defense attorney found out about it--
    It all began by chance at a 7-Eleven in Old Town Manassas near Grant Avenue and Church Street shortly after 8 a.m. April 15, the day of the verdict. In fact, defense attorney Jon E. Shields would never have even seen Heaster at the store that morning had he not been going to buy some newspapers himself. And there was no question about it.
    Very plausible. And I say that with no irony or sarcasm.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:30:49 AM EST
    No, a smart defense attorney got the tape

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:38:40 AM EST
    I hope no one minds if I interject with a pertinent question: Why is it that it always appears that the prosecution's side is on the wrong side of these incidents? You've also got the case of the courts throwing out a death sentence because jurors consulted the Bible before rendering their verdict? Why, I wonder, does the "law and order" party and those of its ilk feel they are above those same laws? If someone has evidence of tampering offenses on the defense side, let me know... As far as surveillence, doesn't everyone just assume we're under 24/7 surveillence nowadays? She was in a public place, where's the foul? And if Blaghdaddy was ever charged with a crime, he'd damn sure want someone keeping an eye on his peers to ensure they were following the letter of the law...wouldn't anyone else?

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:43:54 AM EST
    As far as surveillence, doesn't everyone just assume we're under 24/7 surveillence nowadays? She was in a public place, where's the foul?
    I do assume as much, Am I the only soul left who doesn't like it? You are correct JHC...the defense attorney got the tape, then handed it to the state. This is troubling in itself. Can any mook walk into a 7/11 and walk out with surveillance tapes?

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:54:22 AM EST
    So is this called justice in the land of freedom?

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:51:18 AM EST
    Six dollars per hour for an interpreter? That can't be right. Who, in their right mind, would do such difficult work for so little money? I'm sure one of you will explain it to me . :)

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:06:14 AM EST
    I have heard that Mothers Against Drunk Driving instructs their members to lie about membership so that they can get on juries. Anyone else hear about this?

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    As I read this story I am outraged, not at the juror but at the legal system that makes the juror out to be a crook and makes jury service that more odious. A judge has no right to tell jurors not to read or buy newspapers. A judge may tell a juror not to read any account of the trial but that is far different from buying a newspaper, an offense that may result in 10 days in jail! Secondly why would her purchasing a newspaper require a mistrial. There needs to be a lot more here that is not being reported to justify overturning a conviction. No wonder average citizens do not want to serve on juries. The legal system ought to look at this case with a sharper focus. I hope some lawyer comes to this juror's aid.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    Sounds like MADD Rog...They should just go ahead and change their moniker to MATF...Mothers Against True Freeedom

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:38:36 PM EST
    Jurors do lie to get on cases. I had one where a juror lied about knowing who my client was. As it turned out, not only did he know who my client was, but knew that he had been to prison before & shared that info with the other jurors. So much for keeping my client off the stand so that the State couldn't impeach him with his priors. No, they didn't prosecute this assclown, but my client did get a new trial. I think when people think juror misconduct they think Acquitting for an improper reason. Nope. Usually it goes the other way.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:41:29 PM EST
    The ever growing government surveillance may be troubling, but this is not a instance of Big Brother's war on freedom. This was an instance of a private business monitoring its property and a smart defense attorney defending the civil rights of his/her client. It may be troubling that the juror was spied on, but that juror's crime against the defendent was greater. We're all liberals here, right? Shouldn't we be standing up for a defendent whose right to a fair trial has been so grossly violated? There was no abuse of government powers involved in the uncovering of the juror's crime, just good defense work.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kitt on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    I think the judge's response is clearly over the top. Given that, the juror should have just told the truth. So what if she bought a paper or two papers; like someone said, there's plenty of other information one may be perusing.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 06:56:44 PM EST
    The fact remains: by violating the rules all jurors are required to follow, she undermined the defendent's right to a fair trial. If the judge had disregarded the juror's breach of the defendent's rights is almost as great an atrocity as the accused's crime.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#22)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:13:52 AM EST
    My wife sat on a murder trial. She got the no-news instructions and lived up to them. We cut out the relevant articles in the paper so she could read them later. Considering our experience with journalists, I don't think she'd have been swayed by an article, anyway. The relationship between reality and a newspaper article is not much better than random. About all it's good for is to cause you to make mental note to find out what's really going on. Not a bad public service, but not the same as informing the public.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    Serving on a jury isn't worth the trouble anymore. Ordering someone not to buy a newspaper so unreasonable that I sympathize with the juror in this case.

    Re: Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 02:34:22 PM EST
    Once again folks, the problem was not so much she bought the paper as she lied about it under oath (can you say 'clinton', I thought you could) Once someone involved in a trial, whether DA, cop, juror, witness or defendant, commits perjury, it's not a fair trial. To me it doesn't matter how insignificant the perjury was, if they lied under oath they could have lied about other things not verifiable.