I’ve heard of people lying to get OUT of jury duty. But lying to get IN? Not too smart, considering who they were lying to. Who would have thought a court where criminal record information is kept would find out about the criminal records of those serving on one of their juries?
Potential jurors lied about criminal past
BY ERIN L. NISSLEY, STAFF WRITER - The Times Tribune
November 19, 2008
A jury trial ended in a mistrial before it began Tuesday when a prosecutor discovered three jurors lied about their criminal records.
All three were chosen Monday, along with 11 others, for the trial of a Scranton man on drug and gun charges. As part of the selection process, potential jurors must fill out a questionnaire that asks, among other things, if they have ever been arrested and if they have ever been convicted of a crime.
All 14 jurors — 12 plus two alternates — answered they had not. But a background check, which is routinely conducted on jurors selected in a criminal case, revealed three had criminal records, Deputy District Attorney Margaret Bisignani said.
Ms. Bisignani reported her discovery to Judge Vito Geroulo on Tuesday morning.
“In my 36 years (in the legal profession), I’ve never heard of anything like this,” he said, joking that jurors more often lie to avoid jury service.
If only one or two of the jurors had lied about their criminal history, the case against defendant Larry Moore, 23, could have gone forward because there still would have been 12 people left on the jury, Judge Geroulo explained.
Ms. Bisignani said if the information had not been discovered, any conviction would be automatically overturned.
“A person is ineligible to serve as a juror if they have a conviction of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison,” she said.
A new jury will be picked this morning, and the case will go forward, Ms. Bisignani said.
The three jurors’ names were not released Tuesday; it’s unclear whether they will face charges. Judge Geroulo said that decision would be up to District Attorney Andy Jarbola, but he felt so strongly about the situation that he called the jurors into the courtroom Tuesday to explain why they were being sent home.
“It interferes with the court’s ability to do business,” the judge said. “The goal is to get fair and impartial jurors. That didn’t happen here.”
