Potential juror facing jail time for lying
Hides criminal background in death-penalty case.
COLUMBUS — Bernard G. Turner Jr. was among a pool of potential jurors being considered for a death-penalty trial involving the murder of two Westerville police officers when he was arrested in October on a domestic violence charge in
Turner
Whitehall.
Turner tried to use his jury service as a reason he should not be taken into custody, and a cruiser camera captured his comments.
“The reason why I am still going to be on that jury is because I want to make sure I do the right thing by the man,” Turner said, referring to the defendant, Quentin L. Smith, according to a transcript of the conversation.
“You better hope they don’t put me on that jury because I will turn that dude loose,” he told the officer.
Turner, who is black, suggested Smith wasn’t getting a fair shake “because he killed two white cops.”
The attorneys and judge in the Smith case already knew that Turner, 54, of Whitehall, had lied to them about his criminal background, and they were poised to remove him from the jury pool. That decision was hastened when the Whitehall officer made them aware of the cruiser conversation.
On Thursday, Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Frye was to sentence Turner for contempt of court for lying during jury selection. He faced up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $250.
“The system can’t function if you have jurors lying to the judge and attorneys about their impartiality,” Frye said. “If they have a secret agenda, it undermines the whole premise of the justice system.”
Reports of individuals found to be lying during jury selection — a process known as “voir dire” — are rare, but some have led to serious consequences.
In 2012, a 23-year-old Massachusetts man was sentenced to two years in prison for perjury and misleading a judge for saying during jury selection that he didn’t know any of the parties in a gang-rape case. It turned out that three of the four defendants and the victim were his high school classmates.
In 2013, a California appeals court overturned a defendant’s convictions in a sexual-assault and murder case after it was learned that a juror had failed to reveal that he had several criminal convictions and had conducted internet research about the defendant’s case.
Turner didn’t get on the death-penalty jury that convicted Smith in November of purposely killing Westerville police officers Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli. The jury recommended back-toback sentences of life without parole for Smith rather than death.
The judge determined Turner had lied on a jury questionnaire when asked whether he ever had been arrested, charged with a crime or convicted of one; Turner had listed only “improper handling of a firearm.”
Prosecutors checked and found that Turner’s record also included two domestic violence arrests, plus charges including assault and disorderly conduct. When he was questioned directly in court, Turner repeatedly denied ever having been arrested on a domestic violence charge.
His answers, in court and on the questionnaire, were given under oath.
Judge Frye, Prosecutor Ron O’Brien and Diane Menashe, one of Smith’s defense attorneys, all said they had never encountered a case in which a potential juror was found to be so blatantly dishonest, let alone one in which a potential juror revealed his bias about the case to police.
“Not every person is honest in voir dire,” Menashe said. “(Turner’s) case is just extreme, and that’s why there are consequences for his actions, but it’s not as if everyone else is honest.”
Based on her experience, including numerous death-penalty cases, Menashe said it’s not unusual to sense during voir dire that “some people really want to serve, either because they’re with you or against you.”
In those instances, the prospective juror will answer questions in a way that makes it less likely that they will be excused, sometimes “omitting things or revising history,” she said.
The best way to probe a juror’s possible biases is by asking open-ended rather than yes-or-no questions during voir dire, she said.
O’Brien, the Franklin County prosecutor for 23 years, couldn’t recall another case in which a prospective juror was found in contempt for lying.
“For the most part, people who honor the summons and report for jury duty are diligent citizens who are here to do a difficult job, and when questions are asked, they are honest and responsible with both sides,” O’Brien said.
Frye said it was the first time he has found a prospective juror in contempt for lying. In issuing his contempt finding in February, the judge made clear in writing how damaging Turner’s actions could have been:
“Those interested in affording Quentin Smith and all the people affected by the Westerville police murders a fair trial would have had their confidence in the court undermined if not shattered had Mr. Turner succeeded in getting on the jury trial.”