Nov. 18, 2024 4:20p
(WGTD0---A Kenosha teen’s request for a new trial in a case in which several jurors expressed misgivings at returning a guilty verdict will be heard Friday.
Judge Gerad Dougvillo is expected to convene a hearing as a follow up to briefs filed by both the defense and prosecution.
Our story begins several months ago. Out of frustration, the defendant's mother had contacted WGTD after her 16-year-old son, Martel Lee, was convicted--wrongly, she believes-- of sexual assault.
The purported rape allegedly occurred earlier this year in a bathroom at Indian Trail High School. But the alleged victim couldn't pin down the day, made numerous inconsistent statements, and admitted on the witness stand to hearing voices. There were no eyewitnesses or physical evidence.
Jurors deliberated for ten hours over two days. One suffered a panic attack, and several were distraught and in tears when they returned with the verdict.
In the aftermath, several jurors, in affidavits and in interviews with WGTD, said they felt unduly pressured. "I fought for so long...and honestly wished I (had) fought harder," one woman wrote. Another wrote that the deliberations "reached a point of hostility and were stressful throughout."
In a letter to the judge, another juror disputed the bullying allegations. "I never observed anything but respectful interactions with fellow jurors," he said. Still, the juror said the majority was determined to avoid a hung jury.
In criminal trials, a conviction requires a unanimous verdict.
Defense attorney Michael Barth is seeking a new trial, but state law takes the position that what goes on in the jury room should stay in the jury room.
There are some exceptions, and Barth thinks he found one in a written question sent to the judge by the jury in which the foreman asks for clarification of the phrase "rational consideration" of the evidence. The standard which should've been applied is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Barth views the question as evidence that improper "extraneous prejudicial information" seeped into the jury room.
In support of the contention, Barth points to a juror who says in an affidavit that at one point she was asked to prove that the defendant was NOT guilty. The burden of proof of course lies with the state.
Barth admits that his appeal for a new trial is a long shot.
The prosecution argues there's no reason not to proceed to sentencing.
Lee could receive up to 40 years.
-0-