The Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals has received a request from the prosecutors to appeal Judge Stacy Cook’s ruling, which granted Ahmad Williams a new trial in the case of his infant son’s death.
On August 11, 2023, Williams was found guilty of the murder of his 10-month-old son, which had taken place a year prior.
Judge Cook made a ruling on May 9th regarding one of the jurors in Williams’ trial. The juror had brought in personal medical expertise that went beyond the evidence presented in the case, which Judge Cook deemed as “extraneous prejudicial information”. This information swayed several jurors from their initial innocent votes to guilty votes.
On Monday, the state filed a motion for leave to appeal, urging the appellate court to consider the discussion regarding Judge Cook’s ruling.
The crux of the matter lies in the dispute over the definition of “extraneous prejudicial information.” According to Ohio law, for information to be categorized as such, it must go beyond what can be considered common sense or knowledge gained through education or work experience. Instead, it must be obtained through external research.
The state has submitted a motion, presented by Lucas County Assistant Prosecutor Evy Jarrett, which argues that the views expressed by Juror 3 cannot be considered as qualified opinions, given that they are based solely on his experience as a Registered Nurse. Jarrett points out that Ohio and most states allow jurors to incorporate personal experiences to a certain extent, but in this particular case, Juror 3’s opinions go beyond that leniency.
According to the state’s motion, the defense had a chance to question Juror 3 during the jury selection process, so allowing him to serve on the jury was a waiver of their right to object based on his outside experience.
On May 9, Judge Cook made a decision to grant a retrial following a letter submitted by a juror who expressed feeling unduly influenced by a fellow juror’s medical expertise, leading her to vote guilty. Judge Cook took the unusual step of calling all members of the jury back to the stand to testify about their deliberations. Many jurors agreed that the juror in question had done a better job proving the case than the prosecutor and had introduced medical testimony not discussed during the trial.
After the verdict was announced, the jurors were polled, and they all confirmed that the decision was entirely their own. Additionally, during their testimonies, multiple jurors stated that Juror 3 did not attempt to sway their opinions during deliberations but instead provided them with information based on his experience.
The state has raised concerns about the potential implications of a retrial, both in terms of legal arguments and jury privacy standards. The definition of “extraneous prejudicial information” is being debated, and the state is wary of setting a precedent for future cases. Additionally, the confidentiality of jury deliberations is crucial to shield jurors from any form of harassment or backlash they may face for their decisions, particularly in contentious cases.
The state’s request for leave to appeal can be opposed by the defense through the filing of a brief, as permitted by law.
