A “racist” juror who was called for a murder trial — and who had a heated argument with a fellow juror outside the courthouse — has led to the defendant’s convictions being tossed.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has vacated Pedro Vasquez’s convictions of murder in the second degree and other charges following the racism allegations in the trial.
“During jury deliberations in the defendant’s murder trial, an argument between two jurors led to allegations of racial bias,” the Supreme Judicial Court wrote in its ruling.
“Although the judge made a limited inquiry into the matter, because we conclude that it was insufficient to satisfy the protections under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to a fair and impartial trial, we vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial,” the SJC ruled.
The deadly shooting in this case was back in January of 2015, when Springfield police officers responded to a call for shots fired. The cops saw a black Jeep with the victim, Yahaira Hernandez, sitting in the driver’s seat with a fatal gunshot wound to the back of her head.
Police recovered surveillance footage from a home security camera across the street from the murder scene.
The recording showed the Jeep come to a stop in the right side of the frame. A few minutes later, the rear driver’s side door opened, and the camera recorded an argument in Spanish between a male and a female, a gunshot, and the shooter fleeing the scene on foot.
Because no physical evidence connected Vasquez to the crime, prosecutors relied on the surveillance video to prove his identity as the shooter.
The jury began their deliberations on a Friday afternoon, the 10th day of the trial, and deliberated for about two hours before the judge let the jurors go for a long weekend.
“A court officer observed the juror in seat 2 (juror no. 2) and the juror in seat 4 (juror no. 4) arguing outside the jury room,” the ruling reads. “Not long afterwards, both the court officer and the prosecutor in the case witnessed a further altercation between the two jurors from a court house window.”
The next court day, the judge received notes from two jurors. One was from juror no. 4, who reported that after the jurors were discharged for the weekend, juror no. 2 started an argument on the sidewalk outside the courthouse.
Juror no. 2 called juror no. 4 “racist,” according to the note.
“On Friday, February 14th, at 4:15, as I was outside heading through the crosswalk outside of the Court building, Juror number 2… yelled for me as he was coming down the last three steps,” the note from juror no. 4 stated. “He eventually caught up to me on the sidewalk across the street and continued a confrontation that started during deliberation.
“On the sidewalk, it turned into more than words and moved to threats,” juror no. 4 wrote. “He continued to provoke me and was trying to start a physical altercation, which I began to walk away from. He got back in front of me when I was near some other gentlemen, who were on the corner. He called me a racist in front of them and continued to provoke me. It was now a four-on-one situation of continued threats. I quickly walked away and was not pursued.”
The judge conducted a voir dire with juror no. 2, juror no. 4, and the foreperson. Juror no. 2 confirmed that he had accused juror no. 4 of being racist.
Juror no. 2 explained that he “did not assume (juror no. 4) was a racist based on one statement… there were other statements and incidences (sic) within the deliberations.”
Juror no. 4 corroborated juror no. 2’s telling of the interaction outside the courthouse, and said he believed that juror no. 2 wanted to fight him.
While the jurors said they could remain impartial, the prosecutor suggested that both juror no. 4 and juror no. 2 be discharged, due to the “allegations of racism and threats of physical violence.”
The prosecutor also raised the possibility that other members of the jury may have been affected by the dispute between the two jurors, which began in the deliberation room.
The judge ultimately decided not to discharge either juror no. 2 or juror no. 4. The judge reinstructed the jury about impartiality before they began their second day of deliberations.
“You are to be completely fair and impartial,” the judge told the jurors. “You are not to be swayed by prejudice or by sympathy, by personal likes or dislikes, towards either side. You are to consider the evidence in a calm, dispassionate, and analytical manner.”
Later that same day, the jury returned a guilty verdict of murder in the second degree.
Vasquez appealed the verdict, and the Appeals Court affirmed his conviction. Then his appeal went up to the Supreme Judicial Court, which has tossed the conviction.
“Because juror no. 2 provided information ‘reasonably suggesting’ that juror no. 4 openly espoused racist views during the deliberative process, the failure to fully investigate the allegation of racial bias was an abuse of discretion,” the SJC wrote, later adding, “It is clear that the judge attempted to walk what we have noted is a delicate line, but more was required here.”
“Simply put, the circumstances here… establish too great a risk to bear that a juror was racially biased against the defendant and openly shared such views with his fellow jurors while deliberating on the defendant’s guilt or innocence,” the SJC wrote. “As such, we must conclude that the incident created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.”
Originally Published: