Murder trial delayed due to inadequate jury pool

Problems with jury selection last week led to a four-month delay in the trial of Mike Martin, who had been charged with two counts of second-degree murder following an accident in May 2007 in which he allegedly ran a car off the road after a party, killing two of his friends in the other vehicle.

Juanita Ramirez, 22, and James Garner, 25, both of Mountain Home, died in the accident and two other passengers in the Ramirez vehicle survived.

But the long-awaited trial never really got started last Tuesday, as Public Defender Terry Ratliff argued that the jury pool was improperly constituted, an argument that Fourth District Judge Mike Wetherell conceded was correct, and which had widespread implications that went well beyond the Martin trial, jeopardizing all jury trials in the county for the remainder of service of the current jury pool.

Wetherell agreed to release the jury due to Ratliff's concerns and rescheduled the trial for July 22, the earliest it could be fit into the court calendar. "This has to be straightened out. In 5 1/2 years we've never had this problem," he said.

While questioning the jury clerk, Wetherell was told the issue was triggered by a computer glitch. Wetherell wasn't satisfied with that answer.

"I can't believe that this hasn't been addressed in another jurisdiction," he said. "I am disturbed that we don't have a computer program that updates this information in a timely manner. This act in all probability has affected the random nature and objectivity of the (jury pool selection) process."

To resolve the jury pool issue, Wetherell ordered a meeting between the court, the public defender's office, the prosecuting attorney's office, the jury clerk and the jury commission.

At issue was whether or not the jury pool, put together by relatively new jury clerk Marilyn Pendleton, had been properly constituted.

Magistrate Judge David Epis, who serves as the local court administrator, was charged with finding out what happened and what would need to be done.

Typically, every two months the jury clerk randomly selects 400 names of potential jurors, chosen from voting registration and drivers' license records. Those 400 form the basic jury pool for all trials in the county during that time period.

In a report submitted to him by the jury commission at his request, of the 400 summons sent out for jury duty for the current pool, 115 were returned by the post office due to incorrect addresses. Another 53 did not respond to the initial survey questionnaire prospective jurors must fill out. By law, the jury commission can compel those people to respond -- including sending the sheriff out to make them do it (that's also true for those who fail to show up for jury duty). The commission did not do so, nor did it apparently attempt to track down the people whose summons were returned (in order to find out if they are still citizens of the county and thus required to serve), although Epis is still researching that point.

In addition, the jury clerk excused another 76 jurors. State law provides for specific conditions under which a citizen can be excused from jury duty, and Epis will be checking to make sure those the clerk excused met the legal criteria for doing so.

In the end, that left only 156 jurors for the courts to draw on, and in a major trial such as the Martin case, it is not unusual for a judge to have more than 100 jurors called to be available for selection as the 12 jurors and one alternate who will hear a trial. "In a small town like this, you may need at least that many because it isn't unusual for people to know the victims or the defendant, or be related to them," or have some other conflict or issue that would prevent them serving, Wetherell said.

In fact, just before the Martin trial was scheduled to begin, one potential juror was excused for valid medical reasons and another was caught trying to talk to one of the victims' family members just outside the court.

There is also a concern that a reduced jury pool, with too many people excused, may result in functionally a "volunteer" jury pool, which has implications for impartiality. Idaho case law, based ironically on a case many years ago that arose in Elmore County, specifically addresses that issue, and it's why a large pool of jurors representing a wide cross-section of the community, is required.

Wetherell found that based on that case law, Ratliff was correct, telling the jury "this is not the fault of any of the attorneys," but was necessary to ensure a fair trial that would not face a subsequent appeal -- and possible retrial -- on those grounds.

The ruling had implications that reverberated throughout the courthouse. Ratliff, having discovered the problem, said he intended to challenge the jury pool for the 14 jury trial cases he had scheduled Thursday before Magistrate Judge George Hicks.

Typically, in normal pre-conference sessions held between the attorneys and the judges, many of those jury trials are avoided by plea agreements, but Epis said any which are not will have to be delayed until a new jury pool is selected next month. He said he would have a similar problem with cases he has scheduled on his own calendar for later this month.

Epis said it seemed unlikely that any resolution to the problem could be found for the current jury pool, which at this point will not be used, ending all jury trials until the end of the month and another pool of 400 potential jurors can be called.