An Abingdon attorney representing a man recently convicted of two counts of second-degree murder is asking a Washington County judge to release video footage from inside the jury room to help determine if jurors were influenced by Washington County, Virginia, Sheriff Blake Andis during deliberations.
Blake Andis
According to a motion filed on Monday by defense attorney Heather Howard, the attorney began investigating the matter after she “got word” five days after the jury convicted her client, Albert Lee Ricketson III, “that a deputy Circuit Court Clerk had ‘reprimanded’ Andis for ‘taking water to the jurors.’”
Howard said in the motion that she had a professional duty to investigate any irregularities or possible prejudicial actions that could influence a juror’s verdict.
Ricketson was initially charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the August 2020 shooting deaths of 38-year-old Misty Dawn Bishop and 24-year-old Trevor Alexander Sweat. On Nov. 17, following a four-day trial and two-and-a-half hours of deliberation, the jury found Ricketson guilty of two lesser charges of second-degree murder and two counts of using a firearm to commit murder.
People are also reading…
The Washington County Sheriff’s Office investigated the crimes.
Howard noted in the Monday motion that she had seen Andis carrying “an armload” of bottled water from the inmate holding area connected the courtroom, through the courtroom and into the hallway while the jury was deliberating on the floor above.
Howard said she discussed her observations with Commonwealth’s Attorney Josh Cumbow, who she said also saw Andis carrying the bottled water. Neither attorney saw where Andis went after exiting the courtroom, according to the document.
The two attorneys “agreed it would be prudent to review the security camera footage so we could diligently discharge the professional duties that are incumbent upon counsel,” Howard wrote in the motion.
Cumbow said when contacted Thursday that, based on Howard’s concern, “I did agree that we at least needed to watch some video footage of the court security cameras.”
Earlier this month, a circuit court judge directed a county IT department employee to make copies of certain footage from inside the circuit courtroom, the hallway outside the circuit courtroom and the hallway outside the jury deliberation room for both Howard and Cumbow to review. Those cameras were referred to as 3, 3H and 4H respectively in the motion. The judge ruled the defense would need to file a motion seeking footage from inside the jury room.
Cumbow, who said he objects to the release of the jury room video, said he has reviewed the footage previously provided and does not believe any inappropriate contact was made.
He acknowledged that his take on the issue and Howard’s are likely on the opposite ends of the spectrum, but declined to comment further, saying he did not feel it was appropriate to discuss the pending matter, which will be ruled on by a judge.
In her motion, Howard said, “Unfortunately, the security footage from cameras 3, 3H and 4H raises even more questions because there are large portions of time missing from all three videos as evidenced by the time stamps.”
The attorney further wrote, “Interestingly, even though counsel and Mr. Cumbow (and other witnesses) personally observed Sheriff Andis carrying bottled waters inside the courthouse during deliberations, that portion of the video is mysteriously missing.”
Howard went on to explain that each of the videos was split into two parts. A significant portion of time, she said, was missing between part 1 and part 2 of each video. She also noted “blackouts” and other missing footage from the recordings.
Despite the missing parts of the video, Howard said the video shows Andis arrived at the courthouse shortly before deliberations began.
About 15 minutes after the jury went into the deliberation room, Howard said, the court authorized a bailiff and another man, identified later as a member of the defense team, to bring the jury a speaker they requested. Video footage, still images of which were provided in the motion, showed the pair walking up the steps toward the deliberation room followed by Andis, she said.
While the door to the deliberation room is not in frame, Howard wrote that about three minutes later, the three “appear to have exited the jury room.”
On Thursday, Andis, who said he had not yet read the motion but had heard about the grievances, acknowledged he entered the jury room to help deliver the audio equipment along with the bailiff and defense team member, who set up a laptop for the jury.
“I carried the speaker in. One of the jurors, I showed them where the volume was at,” Andis said, adding that that was the only interaction he had with the jury outside of holding the courtroom door for them.
About 30 minutes later, Howard said, the court authorized a second request for a set of headphones. Again, Howard said the footage showed a bailiff carrying the headphones toward the deliberation room followed by Andis.
One minute later, the bailiff appears to exit the jury room, “again followed by Sheriff Andis,” Howard wrote.
Andis denies he entered the jury room on that or any other occasion.
Howard also made mention of footage showing Andis walking toward and away from the jury restroom area and later walking into a nearby witness room. It’s at that point, Howard wrote, that the first part of the video ends, with the second part of the video picking up 16 minutes later showing Andis leaving the witness room.
Howard said in the motion that the video security system “is operated and controlled by the bailiffs,” who, along with other individuals, she later added, “had both the means and the opportunity to access the courthouse security system.”
On Thursday, Andis disputed the implication, saying neither he nor the bailiffs had access to the security system, which is password protected. He said only the county’s IT department can access the system.
Howard said footage from the remainder of all security cameras “must be carefully inspected to determine the identities of all the individuals who had access to the security system inside the ‘old commonwealth’s attorney’s office’ on November 17, 2022.”
The security room is often referred to as the “old commonwealths attorney’s office.”
Once those people are identified, she said, “the service of a private investigator will be necessary to interview everyone who was inside the ‘old commonwealth attorney’s office’ on November 17, 2022.”
Jury deliberations are not typically recorded. However, during the pandemic, the jury deliberation room at the Washington County Courthouse was moved to the overflow courtroom on the fourth floor to allow for social distancing as required by a judicial emergency mandate. Cameras in that overflow courtroom, according to court documents, were inadvertently left on while the jury was deliberating.
Howard acknowledged recording deliberations is “an irregularity that should never occur,” but said, “However, it did occur and the deliberations were recorded.”
She said she recognized that the recording from that camera should not be viewed in its entirety, but said that limited portions must be released because “certain portions are very probative to performing a diligent investigation as to whether any individuals breached the sanctum of the jury deliberation room without the authorization of the court and consent of counsel.”
She added later that based on her review of the footage that was released, it appeared likely that Andis had entered the jury room on two or more occasions.
“Further investigation is required given the camera angle of camera 4H coupled with the significant amount of video footage that is missing from each camera and the juror deliberation video is relevant to solving that inquiry,” she wrote.
Howard did not say whether or not she thought any contact that may have occurred was ill-intentioned, but cited in her motion a number of Supreme Court rulings, one of which states, “[t]he presence of an officer during the deliberations of a jury is such an irregular invasion of the right of trial by jury as to absolutely vitiate the verdict in all cases without regard to whether any improper influences were actually exerted over the jury or not.”
“If Sheriff Andis had any irregular or unauthorized contact with the jurors, he has violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair, impartial, and public trial,” Howard wrote in the motion. “The defendant has a right to a full and through [sic] investigation of this matter to ensure the jury’s verdict was valid and did not result from any improper influence.”
As well as her request to view the additional footage, Howard asked the court to authorize funding for a private investigator.
In addition to the other individuals who had access to the security room, Howard said the county IT professional who preserved the footage and a bailiff who disclosed Andis was seen talking to a juror are essential witnesses who will need to be interviewed.
Howard also requested the immediate preservation of the entire security system and an independent expert computer digital forensic examiner.
“[T]here is an obvious and particularized need to investigate this matter fully to determine if the courthouse security system was tampered with in a way that would cause the loss of significant portions of the videos,” she wrote.
In the previous order, the court gave Cumbow a deadline of Dec. 30 to respond to Howard’s then-anticipated motion.
In regard for what this could mean for the case, Cumbow said, “The court will speak through an order and that will inform us all as to what happens next.”
"entry" - Google News
December 24, 2022 at 02:17AM
https://ift.tt/nFeATvY
Alleged entry into jury room by sheriff puts murder verdict in question - Bristol Herald Courier
"entry" - Google News
https://ift.tt/BsjkmUV
https://ift.tt/XlzZY8j
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Alleged entry into jury room by sheriff puts murder verdict in question - Bristol Herald Courier"
Post a Comment