« Ind. Courts - Miami County to get second superior court | Main | Ind. Courts - Updating "New Marion County public defender will face budget cuts" »
Friday, March 21, 2008
Ind. Decisions - More on "Jill Behrman murder trial unfair, lawyer tells appeals court"
This morning the ILB posted quotes and/or links to stories from two reporters, Deanna Martin and Jon Murray, on yesterday's arguments before the Court of Appeals.
Now Bethany Nolan from the Martinsville Reporter-Times, the site of the trial, weighs in. Here is how her story begins:
Is the case against John R. Myers II entirely circumstantial? Did it prejudice jurors to hear talk of an inadmissible polygraph examination? And did after-hours hijinks color the jury's decision-making process?Those were just a few of the questions three Indiana Appeals Court judges fired off Thursday while dissecting an appeal of Myers' conviction for the murder of Jill Behrman. Leaning over a bench in an ornate courtroom in the Indiana Statehouse, the three listened to presentations from Myers' attorney, Patrick Baker, and deputy attorney general Joby Jerrells, interrupting often with questions about particular details.
Baker appealed Myers' conviction in September, arguing that a litany of issues at the trial level demand the case be overturned, including that the trial court denied his motion to move the trial elsewhere, that jurors heard an expert witness testify about the uncharged crime of rape, that a detective referred to an inadmissible polygraph examination while on the stand and that jurors acted improperly while sequestered for the 12-day trial.
"This case is about fairness," he said. "Fairness in proceedings in the courtroom, outside of the courtroom and at the hotel where jurors were sequestered."
When he pointed out jurors were allowed to drink during dinner - only on their own dime and with a two-drink limit - appellate Judge Cale J. Bradford asked whether there was proof jurors were intoxicated during proceedings or while deliberating. The same applies for the TV jurors purportedly smuggled into the hotel where they were staying, and calls on cell phones, he said.
"You've talked about a number of things," he told Baker. "But there's nothing in the record that their activities affected their decision in this case."
When Jerrells took his turn at the podium, Judge Michael P. Barnes pointed out the state's case is entirely circumstantial. Jerrells agreed, but pointed out the state's belief that motive, opportunity, means and suspicious behavior add up in this case.
Barnes questioned how often inadmissible details can be brought up before an unfair atmosphere is created, noting jurors heard references to a polygraph examination and the allegation from a forensic pathologist that Behrman might have been raped.
"How can you un-ring the bell?" he asked. Jerrells pointed out the jury was admonished by the judge to ignore the polygraph reference. But, Baker later argued, "Once the word 'polygraph' leaves a 20-year detective's mouth, the damage is done."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 21, 2008 02:32 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions