Ethics
Prosecutor will get suspension for invading jury’s ‘interior sanctum’
An Oklahoma lawyer has been suspended for six months for watching real-time jury deliberations on a monitor in a homicide case that he prosecuted. (Picture from Shutterstock)
An Oklahoma lawyer has been suspended for six months for watching real-time jury deliberations on a monitor in a homicide case that he prosecuted.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court docket suspended former assistant district legal professional Isaac Seth Brantley Shields in a March 25 decision.
The Authorized Career Weblog published highlights.
Shields violated “the interior sanctum of a jury,” which is “a excessive breach of belief and a severe interference with the administration of justice,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court docket mentioned. “It is not uncommon data that observing jury deliberations is unacceptable.”
Shields was accused of watching the deliberations video July 1, 2022, within the trial of Chouteau, Oklahoma, man Robert Kent Kraft, in line with prior protection by KJRH.com. There was no audio, in line with the Oklahoma Supreme Court docket.
Shields was an assistant district legal professional in Oklahoma’s District 12, which consists of Craig County, Mayes County and Rogers County. He was the lead prosecutor within the trial of Kraft, who claimed that he fatally stabbed one other man in self-defense.
Jurors have been deliberating in an adjoining courtroom to present them more room through the COVID-19 pandemic. The room was outfitted with three safety cameras that remained on throughout deliberations. Facial expressions and hand gestures have been seen on the high-quality video, however it was not attainable to learn phrases on paper.
Two hours into the deliberations, an officer allowed Shields into the locked safety workplace the place the video performed. Shields claimed that he was requested to enter due to a safety scenario involving the defendant’s household making an attempt to enter the courtroom; safety personnel mentioned the safety incident occurred hours later, however they didn’t know why Shields was allowed in.
Shields mentioned he didn’t instantly go away as a result of he was interested in what was taking the jurors so lengthy and since he had nothing else to do, the Oklahoma Supreme Court docket mentioned. He left and returned a number of occasions. He later advised one other assistant district legal professional who was the second chair within the trial to return the safety room. Shields managed the cameras to zoom in and zoom out and mentioned his observations with safety officers and the opposite prosecutor.
At first, there seemed to be a holdout juror, however Kraft was in the end convicted of first-degree homicide. His case is on attraction after a mistrial was granted due to the prosecutors’ jury observations.
A deputy reported his issues concerning the prosecutors watching the video. When requested what occurred, Shields advised his supervisors that he was within the room for “half-hour. Possibly a bit extra, possibly rather less,” in line with the Oklahoma Supreme Court docket. He additionally mentioned the video was grainy.
Shields truly noticed the jury for greater than two hours, in line with the state supreme courtroom. Shields “misrepresented and was deceitful relating to the rationale he entered the safety room, the size of time he watched the jury, and what he noticed,” the state supreme courtroom concluded.
Shields “not solely noticed the jury for over two hours, he did not disclose that he was doing so to the courtroom, or opposing counsel, even when coping with jury questions. That is egregious conduct,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court docket mentioned.
Shields and the opposite prosecutor self-reported the matter to the Oklahoma Bar Affiliation.
Shields agreed to resign and entered right into a deferred prosecution settlement by which he acknowledged violating a legislation that bans observing or recording jurors. He specified, nonetheless, that he had no intent to interrupt the legislation.
Shields argued that he obtained no benefit by observing the jury, and he had watched others—together with judges and prosecutors—take heed to juries when deliberations received loud.
The state supreme courtroom cited a number of mitigating components. They included Shields’ navy service, his acceptance of accountability for his actions, his self-reporting of the incident to the Oklahoma Bar Affiliation, and his cooperation within the investigation that adopted.
He has been “diligent in finishing the phrases” of the deferred prosecution settlement and has entered into an settlement with Attorneys Serving to Attorneys, a referral service for attorneys, the Oklahoma Supreme Court docket mentioned.
Shields’ lawyer, Sheila Naifeh, advised the ABA Journal that she and her consumer don’t have any touch upon the suspension.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
