11/04/06 (IN):
Expert Concerned At Myers Verdict
|
|
It’s not the fact the jury came back with a guilty verdict against John R. Myers II in less than an hour that concerns Henry C. Karlson (pictured), a law professor at the Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, he said.
What bothers Karlson, who was an unpaid consultant on evidence for the prosecution, is how he believes they were instructed by Superior Court II Judge Christopher Burnham, and whether alternate jurors were present and participated in trial discussion before final deliberations.
Burnham said these concerns are invalid.
Karlson said he also questioned whether the jury had enough evidence to make the right decision - and if they were able to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of Myers’ innocense.
Jurors took 50 minutes Monday to find Myers guilty of one felony count of murder in the death of IU student Jill Behrman, who disappeared during a bicycle ride six years ago. Behrman’s bones were found by hunters in 2003.
“A rapid decision by a jury is generally on the side of the prosecution and is often based on an emotional analysis rather than a logical one,” Karlson said. “But it is not in and of itself an issue for appeal.”
He added that there would have to be some other issues such as admission of evidence or acts of misconduct during the trial that would sway an appellate court to hear an appeal.
Karlson teaches criminal law, evidence and trial. Before coming to IU, he taught at the University of Illinois College of Law. He is listed online by IUPUI as an expert who is available for comment.
“I do this all the time, with trial judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys,” Karlson said of his work for the prosecution.
Karlson has been qualified as an expert witness on the issues of the proper methods for questioning very young children and lawyer competency. He is a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Evidence and the Board of Examiners of the National Board of Trial Advocacy.
Karlson said a recent amendment in Indiana trial rules states jurors may discuss the case before all the evidence is in. They must, however, all be together with no outside parties having access to the discussion.
He said the alternate jurors were not told they were alternates until the end of the trial and he understood the reason.
“Judge Burnham wanted them all to be alert and be familiar with every detail of the case in the event that an alternate was needed. But with such a quick verdict, jurors would have had to have entered into discussions among themselves before final deliberations. And if the alternates participated in those discussions, it would have been improper,” Karlson said.
Although Burnham said he could not talk about any part of the case outside the courtroom, he did discuss the alternate jurors and his instructions to the jury.
“The alternate jurors were designated at the end of the trial and were not a part of the deliberations. I instructed jurors not to talk about the case anywhere outside the jury room - and the alternates were not in that room,” Burnham said.
The number of other possible defendants is one important fact of the case could give Myers grounds for a strong appeal, Karlson said.
“I was told on good authority that there were 30 other individuals investigated who had either confessed to participating in Behrman’s murder or had told their friends about the crime,” Karlson said. “If this information was given to the defense and they did not present it, then it could be argued that other people had made confessions to the crime and Myers was just one of them.”
Calls were made to Myers’ defense attorneys Patrick and Hugh Baker, but there was no comment from them on their trial strategy at press time.
Deputy Prosecutor Robert Cline said he doesn’t think there is a legitimate basis for Myers to appeal - even the denial for a change of venue, “That’s not to say his attorneys won’t try it on every level.”
Cline said with more than 50 witnesses presented and good solid evidence, any 12 jurors from any other county would have come to the same conclusion.
Cline said with due respect to the defense, he’s not sure if a “shot-gun” presentation of 15 or 20 leads thrown out to the jury would have done them any good. Cline said the defense knew ahead of time that these theories would be debunked by the prosecution.
The forensic dentist that testified about Jill Behrman’s teeth made a statement that stuck with Cline. “He said that one tooth in itself doesn’t make the identification. But when you look at all the teeth and how they fit together, you can get a positive match. That’s how this case was,” Cline said. “When the jury heard each witness’s testimony - although it might not seem important to the witness - all their statements taken together made the difference.”
© X-Pro 2006
|
|
