Pulaski County Circuit Judge Leon Johnson on Wednesday rejected arguments that a 39-year-old North Little Rock man, sentenced to life in prison in November, deserves a new trial because of juror misconduct.
The life term was automatic for Elliott Harold Finch Jr., deemed a violent habitual offender, when Pulaski County jurors found him guilty of aggravated residential burglary. He was accused of breaking into his ex-girlfriend's Jacksonville home in August 2013 and threatening her with a gun. Finch, who has previous convictions for kidnapping and sexual abuse, did not testify at the trial.
Jurors also found Finch guilty of aggravated assault on a household member and first-degree terroristic threatening, but they could not reach the required unanimous decision on whether Finch also was guilty of kidnapping. Prosecutors have not stated whether they will retry him on that charge.
The victim, Roshondra Wesley, 40, testified that Finch surprised her in her bedroom after she'd gotten out of the shower. He kept her at gunpoint, preventing her from leaving the residence all night, but she was able to call police the next morning.
Deputy prosecutor Jayme Butts-Hall urged the judge Wednesday not to overturn the jury's findings, arguing that Finch's lawyers have no evidence that one disobedient juror did anything to unduly influence the verdict.
"They're asking the court to speculate" on improper influence, she said.
The juror, Aaron Prieur, was removed from the 12-member panel and replaced with an alternate after he disobeyed the judge's instruction not to use his cellphone during deliberations.
Questioned by the judge during the trial, Prieur testified that he had used his phone to look up something and shared what he found with the other jurors. He said he had heard the judge's instruction not to research the case but that he had turned to his phone without thinking, court filings show.
Court rules require jurors to base their findings on what they see and hear in the trial, the arguments presented and the evidence that's submitted. They're barred from considering information that has not been vetted by the judge.
No one knows what piqued Prieur's curiosity, what he looked up and what jurors talked about, because no one has asked him or any of the other jurors, the prosecutor said. She said the defense should have called Prieur and jury members to Wednesday's proceeding to find out.
The judge denied a defense motion during the trial seeking to question Prieur, citing court rules that prohibit the disclosure of the substance of jury deliberations. He also denied a defense mistrial motion.
Defense attorney Andrew Thornton said he did not seek out Prieur after the trial because the judge has ordered the attorneys not to contact jurors after a trial.
Thornton said the judge didn't need to hear from Prieur or any of the jurors because the judge has sufficient evidence to surmise through "reasonable speculation" that the verdict had been tainted.
"This is a situation where the court must speculate ... because the burden [to prove wrongdoing] is only a reasonable possibility," Thornton told the judge. "We just have to prove it's reasonably possible, and that requires speculation."
Knowing that Prieur researched some issue of interest to himself and the other jury members and that they discussed it, combined with the jury's inability to reach a unanimous decision on the kidnapping charge, is proof that the verdict was reached under questionable circumstances, Thornton told the judge.
Metro on 01/12/2017