This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/lawyers-in-mcdonnell-trial-spar-over-jurors-dismissal/2014/10/15/7a4f8ae0-54b8-11e4-809b-8cc0a295c773_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lawyers in McDonnell trial spar over juror’s dismissal Lawyers in McDonnell trial spar over juror’s dismissal
(about 2 hours later)
The juror who was mysteriously excused midway through the public corruption case against former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, was let go because he called a lawyer he knew and mentioned his jury service — although both he and the lawyer said their conversation did not go far beyond that, court records show.The juror who was mysteriously excused midway through the public corruption case against former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, was let go because he called a lawyer he knew and mentioned his jury service — although both he and the lawyer said their conversation did not go far beyond that, court records show.
The juror, Louis DeNitto Jr., has said publicly he would have pushed against convicting the McDonnells, and the former governor is now arguing that the circumstances surrounding DeNitto’s dismissal provide grounds for a new trial. The juror, Louis DeNitto Jr., has said publicly he would have pushed against convicting the McDonnells, and the former ­governor is now arguing that the circumstances surrounding De­Nitto’s dismissal provide grounds for a new trial.
Those details have been shrouded in mystery since U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer announced that DeNitto had been excused — and offered no public reason why — after an extended, behind-closed-doors meeting on the trial’s 12th day. McDonnell emerged from the meeting looking angry, leading some supporters to wonder whether he had lost a perceived ally among the people who would ultimately debate his guilt or innocence.Those details have been shrouded in mystery since U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer announced that DeNitto had been excused — and offered no public reason why — after an extended, behind-closed-doors meeting on the trial’s 12th day. McDonnell emerged from the meeting looking angry, leading some supporters to wonder whether he had lost a perceived ally among the people who would ultimately debate his guilt or innocence.
Even after the verdict, the reasons behind DeNitto’s dismissal were discussed only in sealed or redacted filings. The Washington Post filed a motion asking to unseal the materials — noting that they could presumably play a role in setting aside the jury’s verdict — but Spencer had not yet ruled on that request as of Wednesday. The circumstances are public now only because of an apparent technical error in the way prosecutors prepared one of their latest motions.Even after the verdict, the reasons behind DeNitto’s dismissal were discussed only in sealed or redacted filings. The Washington Post filed a motion asking to unseal the materials — noting that they could presumably play a role in setting aside the jury’s verdict — but Spencer had not yet ruled on that request as of Wednesday. The circumstances are public now only because of an apparent technical error in the way prosecutors prepared one of their latest motions.
In the motion, prosecutors argue that Spencer properly dismissed DeNitto for violating the court’s instructions not to talk about the case, even if those talks were not especially substantive. They also argue that there is no “credible evidence of premature deliberations,” an apparent attempt to bat down defense attorneys’ contention that DeNitto’s comments suggest other jurors had talked about the case before it was concluded.In the motion, prosecutors argue that Spencer properly dismissed DeNitto for violating the court’s instructions not to talk about the case, even if those talks were not especially substantive. They also argue that there is no “credible evidence of premature deliberations,” an apparent attempt to bat down defense attorneys’ contention that DeNitto’s comments suggest other jurors had talked about the case before it was concluded.
The McDonnells were ultimately convicted of public corruption for lending the prestige of the governor’s office to Richmond businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. in exchange for $177,000 in loans, vacations and luxury goods. They are now arguing that their convictions should be thrown out or, at the very least, that they should be given a new trial because of several purported legal errors.The McDonnells were ultimately convicted of public corruption for lending the prestige of the governor’s office to Richmond businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. in exchange for $177,000 in loans, vacations and luxury goods. They are now arguing that their convictions should be thrown out or, at the very least, that they should be given a new trial because of several purported legal errors.
DeNitto was not in the group of 12 who decided the McDonnells’ fate, and he has acknowledged he did not hear all of the evidence. Although prosecutors would rest their case just two days after he was excused, DeNitto did not listen to the testimony of several important witnesses, including an FBI agent who tried to pull the case together using phone, text and e-mail records and summary charts of the McDonnells’ dealings with Williams. He heard all of Williams’s testimony but did not hear the account of the former governor, who took the stand in his own defense for nearly 24 hours and also faced a withering cross-examination.DeNitto was not in the group of 12 who decided the McDonnells’ fate, and he has acknowledged he did not hear all of the evidence. Although prosecutors would rest their case just two days after he was excused, DeNitto did not listen to the testimony of several important witnesses, including an FBI agent who tried to pull the case together using phone, text and e-mail records and summary charts of the McDonnells’ dealings with Williams. He heard all of Williams’s testimony but did not hear the account of the former governor, who took the stand in his own defense for nearly 24 hours and also faced a withering cross-examination.
The recent filing from prosecutors says that after the trial’s 11th day, DeNitto called a lawyer and brought up his jury service. Prosecutors wrote that the lawyer, who is not identified, called them to report the conversation, and they immediately notified the McDonnells’ defense teams.The recent filing from prosecutors says that after the trial’s 11th day, DeNitto called a lawyer and brought up his jury service. Prosecutors wrote that the lawyer, who is not identified, called them to report the conversation, and they immediately notified the McDonnells’ defense teams.
Spencer talked to both the lawyer and DeNitto in a private proceeding the next day, and their accounts of their conversation differed slightly, according to the prosecutors’ filing. Both the lawyer and DeNitto, though, denied having substantive conversations about the case.Spencer talked to both the lawyer and DeNitto in a private proceeding the next day, and their accounts of their conversation differed slightly, according to the prosecutors’ filing. Both the lawyer and DeNitto, though, denied having substantive conversations about the case.
“Absolutely none, not even close,” the lawyer said, according to the filing.“Absolutely none, not even close,” the lawyer said, according to the filing.
U.S. Attorney Dana Boente, an attorney for Robert McDonnell and an attorney for DeNitto who was hired after the juror’s dismissal, declined to comment. An attorney for Maureen McDonnell did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages Wednesday night.U.S. Attorney Dana Boente, an attorney for Robert McDonnell and an attorney for DeNitto who was hired after the juror’s dismissal, declined to comment. An attorney for Maureen McDonnell did not immediately return phone and e-mail messages Wednesday night.
According to the prosecutors’ filing, the lawyer told Spencer that DeNitto called him and began their conversation with innocuous personal talk. At some point, though, the lawyer said that DeNitto told him: “I am calling you because I am a foreman on a jury” and “there are 12 people, and they are kind of all over the place and I don’t know what to do.”According to the prosecutors’ filing, the lawyer told Spencer that DeNitto called him and began their conversation with innocuous personal talk. At some point, though, the lawyer said that DeNitto told him: “I am calling you because I am a foreman on a jury” and “there are 12 people, and they are kind of all over the place and I don’t know what to do.”
By prosecutors’ accounts, the lawyer said he told DeNitto: “I know you think you have the right to an attorney, and I can understand that because I’ve been your attorney. But when you are in the jury, on the jury, I can’t talk to you and you shouldn’t be talking with me.”By prosecutors’ accounts, the lawyer said he told DeNitto: “I know you think you have the right to an attorney, and I can understand that because I’ve been your attorney. But when you are in the jury, on the jury, I can’t talk to you and you shouldn’t be talking with me.”
For his part, DeNitto admitted to the judge that he called the lawyer “on some other business” and mentioned his jury service, but he denied ever having said he was the foreman, according to the prosecutors’ filing. DeNitto said he asked the about the “normal procedure” in the jury room when the proceedings were concluded, according to the filing. For his part, DeNitto admitted to the judge that he called the lawyer “on some other business” and mentioned his jury service, but he denied ever having said he was the foreman, according to the prosecutors’ filing. DeNitto said he asked about the “normal procedure” in the jury room when the proceedings were concluded, according to the filing.
Asked about his comment that there were 12 people “all over the place,” DeNitto offered a somewhat rambling explanation — suggesting he was confused about the charges against each defendant. He denied that he had talked to anyone about the case.Asked about his comment that there were 12 people “all over the place,” DeNitto offered a somewhat rambling explanation — suggesting he was confused about the charges against each defendant. He denied that he had talked to anyone about the case.
“It wasn’t intended like that at all. Not at all,” DeNitto said, according to the filing. “No. I didn’t talk to anyone about it, about the specifics of the case or anything, you know. Different comments are made when you walk back in there, like, ‘Wow glad that’s over with,’ or that sort of thing, whatever. I didn’t call [the lawyer] about this case, by no means. It was about something else.”“It wasn’t intended like that at all. Not at all,” DeNitto said, according to the filing. “No. I didn’t talk to anyone about it, about the specifics of the case or anything, you know. Different comments are made when you walk back in there, like, ‘Wow glad that’s over with,’ or that sort of thing, whatever. I didn’t call [the lawyer] about this case, by no means. It was about something else.”
Judges have wide latitude to excuse jurors, and prosecutors argued that DeNitto’s dismissal was proper because he “unmistakably violated” the court’s order in calling the lawyer and then “inflated his role” by falsely claiming he was the foreman. According to the prosecution’s filing, defense attorneys seem to be contending that DeNitto should not have been dismissed and the court should have questioned other jurors about possible premature deliberations in light of DeNitto’s comments.Judges have wide latitude to excuse jurors, and prosecutors argued that DeNitto’s dismissal was proper because he “unmistakably violated” the court’s order in calling the lawyer and then “inflated his role” by falsely claiming he was the foreman. According to the prosecution’s filing, defense attorneys seem to be contending that DeNitto should not have been dismissed and the court should have questioned other jurors about possible premature deliberations in light of DeNitto’s comments.
Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.