Superior Court will hold hearing in Strong case
The Arizona Supreme Court has sent the case of the man convicted of the 2005 La Mesa Street murders back to the Yuma County Superior Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether jury misconduct prevented him from getting a fair trial.
Preston Strong was convicted on April 25, 2017, of six counts of first-degree murder following a 47-day trial in the deaths of 35-yearold Luis Rios, 29-year-old Adrienne Heredia, and her four children — 13-year-old Andres Crawford, 12-yearold Enrique Bedoya, 9-yearold Inez Newman and 6-year-old Danny Heredia.
The same jury that convicted Strong later determined that he should receive the death penalty, and on May 5 of that same year then-Superior Court Judge Maria Elena Cruz sentenced him to die by lethal injection.
However, it was learned after the trial that a juror allegedly intentionally withheld information during the jury selection process that she knew about Strong’s 2012 conviction for the murder of Dr. Santinder Gill, for which he was sentenced to two life terms in prison.
As a result, Strong’s defense attorney Jerry Hernandez filed a motion in Yuma County Superior Court for a new trial on the basis of that information, and that her knowing and sharing of that information with other jurors during
their deliberations likely had an impact on the verdict.
Former Superior Court Judge Maria Elena Cruz presided over the hearing for that motion in September of 2017.
Cruz, after hearing oral arguments, ruled that because the defense did not present any direct evidence that the juror intentionally withheld the information, and because it was the juror who shared the information about Strong’s previous murder during jury deliberations and not an outside source, there was no jury misconduct.
She further noted that the defense also did not present any evidence to indicate that the jury’s guilty verdicts were influenced by his previous (Gill) murder conviction, and without ever holding an evidentiary hearing, denied the defense’s request for a new trial at that time.
The new court action sends the case back to the Yuma County Superior Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether jury misconduct prevented him from getting a fair trial.
John Tate, Chief Criminal Deputy Attorney for the Yuma County Attorney’s Office, explained that all death sentence cases, under state law, are automatically appealed and Strong’s evidentiary hearing is part of that process, and currently does not affect the outcome of the trial.
“The case was sent back for a limited purpose only, which is the evidentiary hearing, not for a new trial,” Tate said.
He said that Strong’s appeal is based on several issues, some of which still need to be determined, and that after the evidentiary hearing has been held, its findings will be sent back to the Supreme Court, which will use the information as part of its overall final decision to either grant or deny the appeal.
In its ruling, which was handed down May 26, the state Supreme Court stated that an evidentiary hearing was needed to determine the circumstances of the juror’s alleged misconduct regarding her knowledge of Strong’s previous conviction in the Gill murder, and whether or not it was harmless. When jury selection began in the La Mesa Street murder trial, prospective jurors filled out written questionnaires and were asked in groups about their familiarity with the case.
The parties and trial court also had agreed that anyone who knew about the Gill murder case would be excused, even if they said they could be impartial. A total of 19 prospective jurors were dismissed on this basis.
Additionally, during trial, the court excused a seated juror after the juror acquired information about the Gill murder despite the juror’s assertion that she would not let it influence her decision.
The juror, whom the allegations of misconduct are based upon, admitted knowing about Strong’s previous murder conviction, but didn’t say anything about it because she felt she hadn’t been asked about it specifically.