JOSH MARTINSON - 5 yo (2004) - Maricopa Cty AZ

In the American legal system, what happens behind the closed doors of the jury room is supposed to remain unquestioned.

And maybe you don't want to know anyway -- especially if it's you on trial.

But a first-degree murder conviction now under review in Maricopa
County Superior Court has cracked open the door. A defense attorney has
alleged juror misconduct in the case.






In mid-November, Jeffrey Martinson was found guilty of killing his
5-year-old son. A jury of his peers found aggravating factors that would
qualify him for the death penalty, but they could not reach a decision
as to whether he should be executed or spend life in prison.

As that jury pondered Martinson's punishment, one juror came forward
to complain about what was happening in the jury room. According to his
affidavit, the jury foreperson was not allowing jurors to see some
evidence they wanted to review; would not allow them to discuss lesser
charges that would come up short of first-degree murder; and would not
allow them to discuss any arguments favorable to the defense.

And against a standard court admonition, the affidavit claimed, some
of the jurors may have been discussing the case among themselves at
lunch during the trial. That in itself could cause a mistrial.

Martinson's attorneys called for evidentiary hearings, and two-thirds
of the jurors have already been called into court to testify, with at
least another day of hearings scheduled. Maricopa County Superior Court
Judge Sally Duncan will then have to decide whether to throw out the
jury verdict and declare a mistrial.

According to other judges, such decisions are rare because jury deliberations are largely untouchable.

"You can't get into it; what happens in the jury room is pretty much
sacrosanct," said Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Roland Steinle.
"The allegations come up on a number of occasions, but the number of
times it's granted is rare."

Steinle said that proof of racism in jury discussion might get a
verdict thrown out, as would proof that jurors conducted their own
investigations during the trial by visiting a scene or doing research
online.

"Juror intimidation might be the exception," said retired Superior
Court Judge Kenneth Fields. Otherwise, Fields said, "You don't want to
invade the jury's discretion."

Martinson, 45, was convicted of the 2004 killing of his 5-year-old
son, Josh. Martinson claimed that he thought the boy had drowned and
took an overdose of prescription drugs in an attempt to kill himself.
But an autopsy turned up sedatives in the boy's blood. The medical
examiner ruled that he died of a drug overdose. At that point, the case
looked like a murder-suicide.

But rather than charge Martinson with premeditated murder, the
Maricopa County Attorney's Office charged him with felony murder,
alleging the child died as a result of child abuse.

Martinson's attorneys, Mike Terribile and Treasure VanDreumel,
claimed that the child took the drugs himself, and DNA testing found
genetic material on the pill bottle from which Josh's DNA could not be
excluded. They claimed Martinson attempted to take his own life out of
grief.

Prosecutor Frankie Grimsman argued that it was murder. Child abuse
can include failing to obtain medical attention for an injured or ill
child.

The case went to the jury. The verdict came back guilty.

One juror, when told of the alleged shenanigans during the trial,
said he tried "everything in my power to bring these matters to the
court's attention but because of my effort, I was excused as a juror,"
according to his affidavit. He told Martinson's defense team, and the
trial judge allowed the evidentiary hearing.

The first hearing took place Jan. 17, followed by hearings on Jan.
19, 23 and 25. Many of the jurors said they had been able to view all of
the evidence they needed to view. All agreed that they had only taken a
vote on the first count -- that child abuse led to the child's death --
but failed to vote on a second child-abuse count for which Martinson
was ultimately pronounced guilty.

However, two women stated emphatically that though they voted to find
Martinson guilty on the felony murder count, the jury forewoman had not
allowed them to discuss any lesser crimes, only the most serious level
of child abuse. Anything lesser would not lead to a murder conviction.

One claimed that when she brought up points for the defense, she was
shouted down by other jurors and told by the forewoman that she had no
right to speak because she had slept through the testimony.

The forewoman decided what evidence they would ask to see, they
claimed, including a chart concerning the DNA evidence that suggested
the child may have handled the pills that killed him.

When the forewoman took the stand, however, she denied bullying anyone. She laid blame for discord on the other two women.

Curiously, the attorneys and the judge had allowed the forewoman on
the jury despite knowing that she herself was the victim of a family
member's murder. She told the court that she could keep an open mind.

But as Fields, the retired judge, said, "You cannot help but have strong feelings about your spouse being killed."

Whether the bullying took place or not, the jury voted unanimously to convict Martinson of first-degree murder.

The next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 7. If Duncan declares a
mistrial, Martinson will get a new trial. If she denies it, a new jury
will be picked to consider only whether to sentence Martinson to death.

And Martinson's attorneys are likely to build an appeal, based on the jury's behavior.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/01/27/20120127attorney-alleges-juror-misconduct-murder-case.html#ixzz1l0kZUPiM

Sheesh. Darn jury. Why can't they be cohesive when they are dealing with justice for a poor child that was murdered? The father is responsible...it's obvious. What more do they need. Sounds like buyer's remorse. I hope the judge doesn't declare a mistrial.