FRESNO, CA -- Those watching the federal trial of Luke Scarmazzo and Ricardo Montes got a dramatic surprise today, and it came at precisely the moment that all the parties in the case were expecting a lull. Right after the jurors retired to discuss the case, their deliberations were jolted and then derailed by misconduct. At the end of the day, the jury was down to eleven members and the packed courtroom was abuzz with speculation about the impact of the incident.
The morning began with Judge Oliver Wanger instructing the jurors about the counts they would consider, detailing a daunting set of determinations required for each potential conviction. Things livened up at mid-morning when attorneys delivered an invigorating series of closing arguments, creating a pep-talk mood that carried the jury into their noontime lunch in the deliberation room. But, however motivating these final speeches might have been, they weren’t enough to hold the group together for the decision-making process. The afternoon had barely blossomed, with only enough time for the jurors to pick out a sandwich and a foreman, when the fledgling deliberations came unraveled. By 1:45pm, a juror indicated that he couldn’t handle the pressures of reaching a verdict and wanted out of the process.
Granted, some cognitive dissonance was expected for the deciders of the case. This was no simple issue, and the jurors had been put into a unique position. They would be determining the outcome of the first federal trial involving a medical marijuana dispensary in California, and the evidence had given them some conflicting cues.
Indicators of state-sanctioned medical use are usually kept away from jurors in federal trials involving marijuana, due to the U.S. government’s uniform prohibition of the drug. But Scarmazzo and Montes were facing counts for running a continuing criminal enterprise, and as a defense to these charges they were allowed great latitude in presenting evidence relating to their business. The jury was therefore well aware that the defendants’ dispensary, the California Healthcare Collective, was a facility that supplied marijuana to patients with a verifiable physician’s recommendation for its use.
Articles of incorporation, business licenses, records of tax payments and a mind-numbing quantity of receipts were all shown to the jurors, who were also told to disregard the legitimacy that such documentation seemed to confer. Marijuana was illegal under federal law, the judge consistently reminded them, and state law was not to be considered in federal court. But each instruction about the prohibition of marijuana alternated with dozens of indicators of its legality under state law and of the powerful undertones of its compassionate use. The alternating messages seemed destined to create intense conflict in the hearts and minds of those charged with making a verdict, and for one juror, the tension was almost immediately unbearable.
This juror, whose wife had died shortly before the start of the trial, expressed some subtle misgivings from the start. Due to the freshness of his spouse’s death, this juror questioned his ability to handle the rigors of serving in the case, but he ultimately decided that he was strong enough for the duty. And, as the trial got underway, the widower appeared to be an alert and engrossed member of the jury.
Nonetheless, his initial apprehensions bubbled up again midway through the trial. A verbal message was reportedly passed along through the court deputy, saying that the widower doubted he could continue serving on the jury. Judge Wanger, opposed to playing a game of telephone, requested that the message be sent in written form. But, as the days went by, the expected note never made its way to the judge’s bench… so the trial continued without interruption.
It was not until jury deliberation began that the widower’s reservations finally came to the surface. And when they did, it felt like a tsunami was headed for Judge Wanger’s magnificent domed courtroom. With a frantic bustle and a tone of voice normally reserved for natural disasters, the defense attorneys searched for their clients. It turned out that Scarmazzo and Montes had retired to their Fresno-area hotel rooms, not anticipating that the jury would capsize at launching time.
The defendants were summoned by cell phone, and the events were recounted for them once they arrived. The first note had been sent by the jury’s foreman, and it read, “One juror has asked to be excused due to personal bias. Can it happen?” Alerted to the discord, Judge Wanger sent his courtroom deputy to take the allegedly biased juror and place him in the judge’s chambers until the matter could be resolved.
The deputy, however, met resistance from the jurors when she attempted to separate them. They reportedly wanted more time to talk the issue through, but when the foreman passed along another note, intervention became unavoidable. With distress, Judge Wanger related that one of the jurors had asked to be replaced because he “couldn’t live with himself” if there was a guilty verdict.
The judge then sent firm orders for deliberations to cease and for the reluctant juror to be amputated from the group. “This is now a legal issue,” Judge Wanger declared. According to the judge, the first note had been a legally proper inquiry from the jury since it remained viewpoint-neutral. Not so with the second note, which clearly expressed the thoughts and opinions of a juror in the deliberation process.
The deputy identified this juror as the previously-ambivalent widower, and the judge decided to bring him into the courtroom. “At this point, the court intends to ask about his ability to go on,” Judge Wanger explained as the widower was being fetched.
Observers in the gallery rose when the conflicted juror entered, watching the balding and bespectacled old man quietly take a seat in the empty jury box. The widower had a snowy look about him, beyond what was conferred by his fluffy white beard. He had a look of stark whiteness in a drift behind his eyes, but he bowed his head and concealed his expression whenever he was not being directly addressed.
Judge Wanger asked the widower if he could be fair and impartial to all parties in the case. The response came from a tremulous voice, weak against the flurry of emotion inside the recently-widowed juror. “I thought I could, but I guess I can’t,” he replied. “I can’t find them guilty –”
The judge interrupted, preventing any further articulation of opinions and thoughts on the verdicts. When the juror was asked again if he could give all sides a fair trial, he offered a more definite answer in the negative. Judge Wanger, in his final inquiry, found out that the tormented widower did not believe he could go on with deliberation, based on his state of mind.
The gallery was then cleared, giving the judge and attorneys a chance to privately confer with the juror. By the time the public returned to the courtroom, Judge Wanger had dismissed the widower from the jury and had some strong words for the reason why. “This is juror misconduct…for failing to disclose facts that prevented him from deciding the case in a fair manner,” the judge announced. There were two choices available now, he said – to proceed with just eleven jurors or to send for one of the alternates. The government and the defense attorneys easily agreed on the second option, and the court deputy was directed to contact an alternate with the news.
In the meantime, the remaining eleven jurors were brought to the courtroom and questioned about whether they had been influenced by any statements made by the dismissed juror. There were no affirmative replies to this inquiry, and all of those left in the jury box indicated that they could be equally fair to all sides in the case. They were instructed to disregard anything the dismissed juror had said, and informed that they would be joined in the morning by an alternate juror. Until then, all deliberations were ordered to cease. “Talk about the weather,” Judge Wanger suggested. “Anything you want to talk about except the case.”
As scheduled, bright and early at 8:30am tomorrow, the jury will welcome its new addition and receive further instructions. After that, all deliberations in the case will begin anew…or at least that’s what’s expected. In a case that has bounced from judge to judge and broken new prosecutorial ground, it’s impossible to predict whether any more wild twists and turns lie ahead.
Comments (1)
Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register.
Court Reports 
Comments (1)
