Politics lead to reversal in murder conviction

Court says ‘impartiality of justice’ shattered

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas — The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a Miller County murder conviction Thursday after finding that jurors were improperly exposed to political campaigning by the case’s lead prosecutor.

Marvin Arrell Stanton was sentenced to life plus 15 years at the end of his third trial in August 2019 for the 2015 killing of Jesse Hamilton. Stanton initiated a dispute over a parking space at a Texarkana, Arkansas, convenience store, which ended with Stanton fatally shooting Hamilton.

Stanton’s first conviction was tossed out by an appellate court because of testimony during the guilt or innocence phase of that trial and a second jury was sent home after a mistrial was declared. The third jury found Stanton guilty of murder and a weapons offense. The case is now remanded back to the trial court for a fourth try.

Stephanie Potter Barrett, elected prosecuting attorney for the judicial district serving Miller and Lafayette counties, was seeking signatures for placement on the ballot for a position on the Arkansas Court of Appeals at the time of Stanton’s trial in 2019. Barrett was elected to the

the Court of Appeals earlier this year and assumes the bench Jan. 1.

“On the first day of trial, a family member of Barrett’s campaigned and solicited signatures on Barrett’s behalf in the courthouse. Prospective jurors were asked to sign election petitions for Barrett and other judicial candidates as they walked through the courthouse. Campaign materials featuring Barrett’s photograph and her asserted credentials were placed on the bailiff’s security station throughout the first day and a half of trial,” the Supreme Court opinion states.

Barrett told the Gazette on Thursday she was unaware of her family member’s actions until brought to her attention by Stanton’s defense team.

“The Supreme Court has taken as true every allegation made by the defense and I disagree with the facts as stated in the opinion. The opinion implies that the prosecutor engaged in conduct causing reversal that was actually conduct of a third party,” Barrett said.

“I was inside the courtroom trying a murder trial and was not aware of what was going on outside the courtroom. Justice for Jessie Hamilton has been delayed once again and it is a travesty for his family. I deeply regret that one of the jurors signed my petition to be placed on the ballot and any appearance of impropriety that resulted from it. I will pray for justice,” she said.

Barrett’s aunt, Peggy Burson, said she is responsible for placing Barrett’s campaign material on the bailiff’s table.

“I did not go to the courthouse to campaign, but to watch the trial as I had the first trial,” Burson said. “Only after seeing the other candidates’ petitions did I ask the bailiffs if I could place my niece’s petitions there as well. Stephanie Barrett did not know that I had placed the petitions there. I had no idea that my actions would have such dire consequences for Jessie Hamilton’s family, and it was certainly not intentional. My heart goes out to the family.”

Prospective jurors and members of the public passed by the table every time they entered the courtroom and went through security, according to the opinion.

Stanton’s defense learned of the campaigning at the end of the first day and asked Circuit Judge Kirk Johnson to declare a mistrial based on an appearance of impropriety, according to the opinion. Johnson questioned each juror about the campaigning, refused to remove a juror who signed Barrett’s petition and denied the mistrial request.

“Most jurors were asked to sign petitions, and some had signed petitions for various judicial candidates. The juror who signed Barrett’s petition could not recall whose petition she signed. Each juror assured the court that they could remain fair and impartial,” the opinion states.

The opinion notes that prospective jurors enter the courthouse under court order and were thus a “captive audience” unlike voters who willingly interact with candidates for public office.

The high court found that subjecting the jury pool to campaigning is “an abuse and exploitation of the judicial system and the fundamental civic responsibility of jury service.”

The opinion faults Johnson — who is retiring this year and did not run for re-election — for denying the defense’s request for a mistrial. The opinion laments that the case was tried “before a jury who had been conditioned to give credibility to the prosecutor’s argument. Further, in the eyes of the public, the impartiality of justice was shattered.”

Circuit Judge-elect Wren Autrey will take the bench over which Johnson currently presides Jan. 1. Autrey currently serves as district judge.

The opinion warns that any campaigning by a prosecutor or judge within the walls of a courthouse should be avoided in the interest of public trust.

“When solicited for signatures by or on behalf of the prosecutor or presiding judge during or immediately before trial, a defendant, their family, or other parties before the court may reasonably question whether their willingness or refusal to sign the petition could impact the outcome of their case,” the opinion states. “This may cause irretrievable damage to the public’s perception of justice and cannot be allowed.”