Conviction Reversed Where Prosecutor’s Brother-In-Law Served As Jury Foreman

The Kentucky Supreme Court has reversed a criminal conviction for first-degree sexual abuse.

The allegations involved the defendant’s repeated touching of the buttocks of an 11-year -old child during a game of air hockey. 

The problem that led to reversal was not found in the evidence.

Rather, the jury foreman was the brother-in-law of an Assistant Commonwealth Attorney who assisted in portions of the case including jury selection. The ACA later recused himself because he had previously represented the defendant. 

The relationship was apparently not disclosed. The judge hurriedly had asked a two-part question about potential jurors relationship to counsel and whether the relationship would affect the jurors ability to serve and got no response.

 The Court of Appeals described the situation

[Foreman] Danhauer was subpoenaed to testify by the defense when the motion was heard on July 13, 2015. Danhauer stated he was en route to the bench in response to the judge’s question about having a relationship with [ACA] Williamson, but did an about face, returned to his seat and sat down when [the judge]  rephrased the question to direct potential jurors to come forward if their relationship caused them to be biased. Because Danhauer did not believe his familial relationship with Williamson would influence his decision or his ability to fairly hear the case, he sat down “to expedite the day.”

The court here noted that the ACA “should have been more forthcoming” about the relationship.

It must be a small place. One of the venire that responded to the question and was struck was the defendant’s brother-in-law!

Also struck were the prosecutor’s cousin and the victim’s aunt.

A new trial was promptly sought when, after verdict, defense counsel learned of the situation.

The court noted that there was no evidence of anything less than a cordial relationship between the ACA and the jury foreman.

Rather, “there was no estrangement or fissure in the relationship that would have minimized or diminished the closeness of such kinship.”

The Court of Appeals opinion is linked here. 

The Evansville Courier Express reported on the conviction. (Mike Frisch)