Juror in killing trial will be investigated
Woman reportedly said her beliefs kept her from judging
The incident involving a juror who declined to convict an accused murderer last week will be investigated, Charleston County's top prosecutor said Monday.
Ninth Circuit Solicitor Scarlett Wilson said the juror, an older female, should have disclosed during the selection process any beliefs that might have prevented her from serving.
The woman was the lone dissenter in an 11-1 deadlock that came after more than 21 hours of deliberations. Her holdout sparked tears and outrage from fellow jurors who wanted to convict accused killer Ashante Ishmael Wright.
After the case was declared a mistrial Friday afternoon, one of the jurors told The Post and Courier that the woman said, "My religion won't let me sit in judgment of anyone." In South Carolina, all 12 jurors must find a defendant guilty in order to convict.
Other jurors said the woman had difficulty understanding the concept of reasonable doubt.
But a member of the public defender's office said the woman told lawyers during a post-trial interview that she held out because the state failed to prove its case.
During the selection process, potential jurors routinely are screened by a series of questions about their age, profession, marital status, what publicity they've heard on the case and if they know any of the potential witnesses. There also is a catch-all question that asks if there is anything they know that would prevent them from serving.
Wilson said her office will review transcripts of how the woman answered the questions and how they were phrased.
Jurors have a right to hold certain beliefs, Wilson said, but "they don't have a right to conceal those beliefs." Possible violations might be perjury or obstruction of justice, Wilson said.
John Huddlestun, an associate professor of religion at the College of Charleston, said scholars would need more information on the juror's beliefs before evaluating what religious principle might have been invoked. Nothing in the Bible speaks against sitting on a jury, he said.
Wilson also confirmed Monday that the solicitor's office will retry Wright, 19, the accused triggerman in the June 2006 shooting death of Allen Jerome Grant, also 19.
Grant was killed during a squabble on Simons Street in downtown Charleston as he attempted to ride away on his bicycle. He was shot seven times in the back with a 9 mm handgun and died at the scene.
During the trial, authorities presented witnesses linking Wright to the shooting. Wright's defense attorney said it was a case of mistaken identity, contending that the area was poorly lit, that witnesses were too far away to see the shooter and that there were multiple people in the street that night.
Wright faces a sentence of 30 years to life in prison if convicted.
Reach Schuyler Kropf at skropf@ postandcourier.com or 937-5551.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 29 comment(s)
Posted by MHA on October 30, 2007 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope they can find something to charge her with.
Posted by ln1959 on October 30, 2007 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just because she didn't agree with the other jurors, they are going after her. This is the reason people say there is not true justice in our courts these days. If she refuse to convict the guy because she don't feel the state prove there case, maybe they should look at the other jurors and find out why they felt the way they did.
Posted by mac0cm4 on October 30, 2007 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They're going after her because she failed to advise them that her 'religion' would not permit her to judge anyone else. Well, the primary purpose of the jury is to basically judge whether someone else is guilty. If she is unable to fulfill the mission of the jury it is not only prudent, but it is her DUTY as a citizen and a potential jury to let the court know. This is all explained during the pretrial procedures, as are the criminal penalties.
She basically knew beforehand that she would be unable to do this properly, and then continued to fill a seat. She knowingly undermined the whole purpose of the jury and cost the state and the taxpayers money. She should be charged.
Posted by mggoose2000 on October 30, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Before we jump the gun, let's make sure thru transcripts that she was adequately cautioned and questioned during pre-trial interviews.
These prosecutors are so intent on conviciton that they sometimes skirt the issues to get a jury that they think will convict.
If she answered the questions that were asked and she was asked the appropriate questions, then she should be charged with obstruction or perjury.
Posted by RTC on October 30, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
She clearly can't tell the truth if she gives two separate reasons for her holdout.
She has caused everyone involved much grief and inconvenience, not to mention the cost of another trial.
Posted by crankyyankee on October 30, 2007 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was on a jury and had the same situation. One man with an agenda held us up for hours. All he would say over and over is "ain't nobody guilty of nuttin!". That's the way he voted. Now right there is a good reason that some folks shouldn't be permitted to participate in the process.
Posted by eyfigueroa on October 30, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
my only concern is that if the juror wasn't properly instructed or wasn't savvy enough to understand the nuances of jury deliberation that the government will once again try to penalize one of its citizens for thoughts and opinions. there are occasions that jurors just aren't that savvy or even cognizant of the jury/trial process. In other words, just not that bright! and sometimes attorneys on both sides fail to screen all of the jurors. remember, both sides are trying to get the type of jurors they want for either an acquittal or a conviction.
now, if the juror deliberately withheld information just so she could get her 15 minutes of fame as a juror on a so-called high profile case then she should be prosecuted.
but beware! let's not be so eager for the government to try to prosecute thoughts and/or beliefs. it's so easy for many of you to shout PROSECUTE! because it's someone else. but one day it could be you singled out by the police arm of the government over your thoughts and beliefs.
Posted by lexylady on October 30, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is still my belief that she was planted to do just what she did!! She knew that it would end up in a hung jury because it was in the plan. I believe that!! The reason she was having difficulty understanding certain things is because she didn't want to get caught in a lie. Well, miss juror, you did get caught in a lie and I hope you go to prison for very long time. In there you can tell all the lies you want!! What a disgrace to society.
Posted by captaincrunch on October 30, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Should the same prosecuting agency be permitted to investigate jurors who sit on THEIR juries? Why doesn't an independent agency (like the AG's office) investigate this? Though I doubt it's the case here, this arrangement seems ripe for abuse...
Posted by afternoondelight on October 30, 2007 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From what I read, eleven other jurors found the one "holdout" guilty of abusing the system. By her not participating in the deliberations, she VIOLATED her oath.
Whether or not it was on purpose only the juror knows at this point. But I'll just bet if the investigation goes far enough it will expose a "link" between the juror and the defendant.
Poetic justice would be for the juror to become a crime victim herself. I wonder how she would judge the criminal then?
Posted by gococks1985 on October 30, 2007 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I want to know what religion she claims to be a part of that won't let her judge anyone.
Posted by crankyyankee on October 30, 2007 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is exactly why voting, jury duty and serving the public should be restricted to those that understand and can execute these duties with reason and understanding. People with a vested interest in our Country and not themselves or their religon or race. Not everyone should participate in the system just as all shouldn't be allowed to breed just because they can! The Constitution does not and was not meant to guarantee us the right to vote or the right serve in public office. You should earn these privileges (I'll bet that's a foreign term to many). The prevailing feeling today is that it's a chore to vote and serving your country is for losers. There's no respect for our leadership and I'll vote for whoever offers the most welfare, healthcare, medicare, unemployment and childcare benefits. Ask a young person about serving their Country and they are likely to laugh at you. It's a different animal parents are raising these days! Too many expect all of the privileges but none of the responsibility. We'll survive this attitude but we will be reduced to a small player in the overall world picture.
Posted by charlene68 on October 30, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If she was instructed good and understand everything that was explained to her, she legally has the right to vote the way she wants to. I know that is a terrible thing, but if she is not in agreeance with what is being said or done, she does not have to go along with it just because everyone else does.
Posted by justme2 on October 30, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree w/Charlene68. I'm sure she was screened before being chosen as a juror. Her decision does not make her stupid or ignorant, as she is being portrayed on this forum. If you don't stand up for what YOU believe, then you will fall for anything.
Posted by afternoondelight on October 30, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Serving on a jury is NOT the time to stand up for what you believe.
A potential juror is asked if he/she will LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE, and along with eleven other jurors, decide guilty or not guilty. As I understand it from the other jurors this ding bat wouldn't even listen to the evidence or engage in deliberations. So how can she not be portrayed as a loser.
Posted by JC on October 30, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reminds of a infuriating educated woman I sat in on a trial with - letting her personal thoughts and beliefs interfear with the task at hand. It happens all the time. With the lady making the statement about her religion and not disclosing it...she should go to jail! Maybe she knew the defendent or his family is why she did it.
Posted by mdtpace on October 30, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To those who think she had a right to vote how she voted, go back and reread the previous articles. They state that she voted that way because of religious reasons, that her religion wouldn't allow her to sit in judgment of someone else. What religion is that? They really should at least require people to have a high school degree to sit on a jury. You risk getting that one idiot, or more, who is going to vote someone guilty or not guilty because of race or something stupid like that. The role of a juror is to listen to the the evidence and testimony that is presented by both sides and use that to arrive at a conclusion that is reasonable and explainable. The whole concept of what you believe doesn't matter, it is what was proven by the evidence that was presented that counts. It's amazing how ignorant people can be. Let SLED investigate her so there is no question about a conflict and if THE EVIDENCE shows she lied or violated her oath, then prosecute her.
Posted by Charleston01 on October 30, 2007 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I DONT THINK THE JUROR IS WRONG FOR HER VOTE. THEY HAVE NO PROOF THAT THE YOUNG GUY KILLED THIS OTHER MAN. THE HAVE EYE WITTNESS ACCOUNT WHICH WE ALL KNOW CAN ALSO BE RELIED UPON. FOR ME THEY WOULD NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE PROOF AND HARD EVIDENCE.
I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LIVE WITH MYSELF SENDING SOMEONE TO JAIL OVER REaSONABLE DOUBT. WHO MAY HAVE NOT EVEN COMMITTED A CRIME. YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE THE HAVE LET OUT OF JAIL ALL AROUND THE WORLD B/C OF EYE WITTNESS ACCOUNT AND RETESTING THE EVIDENCE AND THEY WERE INNOCENT. THE EYE WITTNESS GOT THEM PUT AWAY AND THEY WERE DEAD WRONG.
SO I COMMEND HER DOING WHAT SHE FELT WAS RIGHT AND STICKING WITH IT. JUST B/C SHE DID WHATS RIGHT DOES NOT MAKE HER A BAD PERSON OR SOME TYPE SPY PUT IN PLACE TO SABOTAGE THE CASE.
Posted by Girleygirl on October 30, 2007 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I though OJ was aquitted by an all white jury.....
Posted by charlene68 on October 30, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
She did say for her religion, but she does not have to give a reason, she can vote the way she wants to for whatever rason thqt she does not agree with.
Posted by lexylady on October 30, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charleston01, I feel reasonably sure that you would love to open the doors of death row and let all of the muderers out. You are way off in Liberal Land somewhere. I say to your statement; BULLCRAP!!
IdolHanz, YOU said it correctly, and until these bleeding hearts get it, it will continue to get worse every single day..
Posted by ThePhink on October 30, 2007 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CHARLESTON01 THE CAPS LOCKS ARE ON THE LEFT THE NEXT TIME YOU FEEL LIKE MAKING A COMMENT.
That way we can easily read what stupidity is coming from your keyboard.
Did you sit on the jury too? How do you know the evidence? Let me guess, it is probably a relative or friend of yours that is the KILLER and you are just trying to find an excuse for him.
The defense attorney said "that witnesses were too far away to see the shooter and that there were multiple people in the street that night."
Well which one is it? The way I see it is if there were multiple people in the street that night that and the suspect was mistaken for one of them the witnesses were not too far away to id the jerk. RIGHT?
Posted by bluebird on October 30, 2007 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Charleston01....Have you been drinking today? Eyewitnesses risk their life to get this scum off the street and the best his lawyer can do is say it was dark so how could it be his client? And we wonder why the judicial system is all messed up...well it takes a jury of jis peers to convict him and if more people sit on the jury like Charleston01 and the hold out juror we'll never put anyone behind bars where they belong! Let me ask you a question....would Grant be so innocent if he was accused of murdering one of your family members?
Posted by justme2 on October 30, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad that people like some of you who are so quick to judge and criticize, were not picked to be on the Jury.
I wonder how many people would be on death row or dead, because of your opinion. Then the same ones complain about how many people are in jail and YOUR tax dollars are use to pay for them.
Stop Judging. The woman made the correct decision if she did not feel right about it, no matter what the reason.
Just like your opinion is to find a guilty verdict in the court of P & C, it is her right to her opinion. Remember, itis without a SHADOW of a doubt. Maybe she had a doubt. It is her conscience.
Posted by Reader on October 30, 2007 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JustMe2 wrote, "Remember, itis without a SHADOW of a doubt. Maybe she had a doubt. It is her conscience."
That is absolutely NOT the standard for finding someone guilty. The standard is a reasonable doubt. Those are not the same thing.
There are two things being reported: (1) She voted for acquittal because of religious grounds. (2) She voted for acquittal because she felt the evidence was lacking. Neither of those two versions has been established by anything other than third-parties repeating conversations with her.
If she refused to take part in the jury process out of principle, she needs to be charged with a crime herself. If that were a reasonable excuse for acquitting, the judge would have just asked everyone on the panel whether they held that belief. If one person had raised her hand, the judge could have just declared a mistrial right then and started over. That is, however, NOT a legitimate excuse. Like it or not, the jury process is our system. If you cannot stand it, you can be excused from service, but you cannot gum up the system based on your own personal beliefs.
Posted by MHA on October 30, 2007 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by justme2 on October 30, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad that people like some of you who are so quick to judge and criticize, were not picked to be on the Jury.
I wonder how many people would be on death row or dead, because of your opinion.
If we went by my opinion, they wouldn't be on death row.. they'd be dead already.
For those of you that can't read English (I.E. charlene68, In1969, Charleston01) this poor excuse of an adult did not find the man innocent. She refused to vote, period. She should be punished to the maximum extent that the law allows, and then they should tack on a few extra years just to make sure she is to old to breed when she gets out of prison. We don't need her DNA passed on to anyone.
This woman ( I won't use the word "juror" as she proved not to be one) probably types in all caps too.
Posted by stephaniem on October 30, 2007 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you also have to remember that the post & courier doesn't always report things unbiased.
This story may be slanted for a better story
maybe this woman stated that her religious views won't allow her to vote guilty as there were conflicting stories on the guys identity and her conscious won't let her be coerced by peer pressure
Posted by oldglory on October 31, 2007 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with many: justme2 - basically said what I feel; mggoose2000 - totally agree; RTC - re her truth, perhaps she retained a lawyer!; eyfigueroa - totally agree.
The P&C quotes the solicitor as saying this juror is an "older female". It should be determined that she wasn't intimidated by any of the family/friends/etc. of the defendant. (Nor P&C earlier comments during the trial!) Most of us don't live in a world where we need to tolerate intimidation; ergo, we are unable to imagine what it would be like living with intimidation and fear.
You know what? We don't even know the facts of this case without reading the transcript (which the Solicitor's office will do). How can an intelligent opinion be reached without any facts?
Before it's said, I'm not a liberal, but rather a law-abiding citizen (as I'm sure all who post comments are), and the law must be upheld.
(I'm tardy in "my opinion/response" due to taking care of real life business which I've been neglecting to read all the comments on the forums!)
Posted by CHRISJIII on October 31, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does this mean that the next time that I have jury duty I must either go along with the decision of the majority or be punished? This country gets scarier all the time!!!!