The jurors who found a Seattle man guilty of killing a man last year outside a Brier party will be summoned before a judge to determine if there was any misconduct during the trial.
In an unusual move, the seven women and five men who decided the case will be questioned by Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wynne on Feb. 9.
County prosecutors said the session is “a fishing expedition” being conducted at the request of defense attorneys for Noel Caldellis, who is facing a 30-year prison sentence in the murder of Jay Clements, 21, of Mukilteo.
Caldellis’ sentencing had been set for Jan. 8, but it will be put off a month to give lawyers time to prepare for the February hearing.
There are no grounds to believe that jurors acted improperly, deputy prosecutor Matt Hunter said.
If any juror misconduct is found — such as conducting research about the case outside court — it likely would result in a new trial.
In addition to questioning jurors, defense lawyer Raymond McFarland will get one more chance to argue that Wynne and the prosecutor made mistakes that influenced the jury’s decision.
For those reasons also, Caldellis should get a new trial, McFarland said.
Wynne on Friday, Dec. 28, agreed to talk with jurors and hold the hearing.
Caldellis, 20, was convicted Dec. 11 when the jury found that he displayed extreme indifference to human life by firing a .357-caliber revolver in the direction of a crowd. He also was found guilty of two counts of second-degree assault.
Dozens of young people had gathered to watch fistfights outside a party that was being held in a Brier home over Labor Day weekend in September 2006.
Clements, a college student who grew up in Mukilteo, was hit twice when Caldellis fired four shots, two at crowd level and two into the air.
McFarland on Friday, Dec. 28, delivered a 14-page motion to the court asking the judge to set aside the jury’s verdict and to give Caldellis a new trial.
Wynne should have instructed jurors that Caldellis had no duty to retreat from a mob scene in the cul-de-sac outside the home. Caldellis’ group had come there to fight others who had attended the party, McFarland wrote.
During an interview with police, Caldellis told detectives that he used the gun to protect his friends, who were outnumbered, and to disperse the crowd.
McFarland also argued that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that Caldellis acted with extreme indifference, the basis for the first-degree murder conviction.
In addition, McFarland accused Hunter of misstating the law in closing arguments when the prosecutor said that even the two shots that were fired into the air could be construed as second-degree assault.
McFarland said that could have influenced the jurors.
Hunter said Wynne already has ruled on the sufficiency of “extreme indifference” evidence, and Wynne consciously decided not to tell jurors that Caldellis had no duty to retreat.
Jim Haley writes for the Herald of Everett.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
