Husband denied bid for new murder trial
VAN BUREN — A man convicted of killing his wife last month was denied his request to be re-tried for his crimes in Crawford County Circuit Court.
Circuit Judge Mike Medlock denied a motion Tuesday for a new trial based on “jury misconduct,” which attorney Adam Rose filed for Eathan Alan Cypert, 30, of Natural Dam. Medlock said the motion didn’t have merit after considering arguments for and against it from Rose and Kevin Holmes, county prosecutor.
A jury found Cypert guilty of first-degree murder at the end of a three-day trial Jan. 25 in the death of his wife, Kristina Cypert, 41, on July 3, 2022, along with using a firearm to commit the murder.
Cypert was sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder charge on top of an additional 15 years for the firearm enhancement. Medlock presided over the proceedings.
Rose stated in his motion for a new trial a member of the jury informed him Jan. 30 that other members said during deliberations they knew Kristina Cypert and her family. The jury members also reportedly claimed they had been to the Cyperts’ home and provided details of the home’s layout, in addition to drawing a diagram of the residence for the jurors.
“This was a central point of contention in the defendant’s theory of the case presented to the jury, and a diagram of the home was never presented by the state or the defense as evidence in the case presented to the jury,” Rose wrote.
Rose also wrote in his Jan. 31 filing a member of the jury told other jurors about potential plea negotiations and offers the state had made to Cypert in the case.
Rose argued this reported jury misconduct involved “extraneous prejudicial information” being considered, as well as improper outside influence that affected jury deliberations. He said these are grounds for a new trial.
“In order to receive a new trial, the defense is not required to demonstrate exactly how the defendant was prejudiced; rather, only that the defendant has a reasonable possibility of prejudice,” Rose wrote.
Holmes filed a response to Rose’s motion Feb. 2 in which he argued Rose failed to prove any jury misconduct had taken place or that Cypert was prejudiced by any of the misconduct Rose claimed, according to court records.
Holmes wrote there isn’t any case law to support knowing a victim or her family constitutes jury misconduct, arguing knowledge of the victim or her family obtained before the trial isn’t prejudicial information. In addition, knowing the victim or her family wouldn’t disqualify a juror provided there isn’t any bias as defined by Arkansas law, according to Holmes.
Several people responded in the affirmative when the court asked all potential jurors whether they knew anyone associated with the case during the selection process, he noted. Any potential juror who indicated their relationship with an involved party would cause them to be prejudiced or biased was dismissed.
Holmes wrote that knowledge of Kristina Cypert’s home obtained before the trial isn’t prejudicial information either, stating the jury wasn’t precluded from considering evidence in the case in the light of their own observations and experiences.
Rose’s assertion that knowledge of plea negotiations in the case before the trial is prejudicial information is wrong as well, Holmes argued.
He also noted Rose could’ve stricken any potential jurors from the jury if he didn’t want anyone to serve who knew Kristina Cypert or her family, previously saw her home or knew of plea negotiations after asking them if they knew these details.
Rose said after Tuesday’s hearing Cypert will file an appeal in this case.