Posted on 05/18/2005 6:46:42 PM PDT by SmithL
A juror on the panel that convicted an amusement park manager of reckless homicide for the death of a visitor said prosecutors did not convince him Charles Martin directly caused the tragedy.
The jury spared Martin a second-degree murder conviction for the March 13, 2004, death of June Alexander, a 50-year-old woman who fell from a ride called The Hawk after her harness opened in midair.
Prosecutors argued that Martin, who was general manager of the Rockin' Raceway when the incident occurred, used jumper cables in the ride's electrical cabinet that bypassed a critical safety system.
However, juror John Nalepa said the state failed to support that claim with evidence.
"There was no real proof that he did it," said Nalepa, an auto mechanic. "Someone would have needed to see it for us to believe it."
In a post-verdict interview Tuesday outside Sevier County Circuit Court, 31-year-old Nalepa said that although the jury did not believe Martin attached the cables, they agreed he should have detected flaws in the ride's operation after another customer's harness failed less than a year before Alexander's death.
"That should have been a wake-up call to him," Nalepa said. "He was the general manager. He should have had the chance to fix it."
Nalepa said the panel of three women and nine men, who were sequestered during the five-day trial, voted 11-to-1 against a second-degree murder conviction when they began deliberating at about 6:30 p.m. Monday.
Martin would have faced 25 years in prison if convicted of murder.
Nalepa declined to explain a $5,000 fine levied against the defendant by the jury as mandated by Tennessee's constitution. A judge may only fine people up to $50. A jury must decide fines above that amount.
A second vote for the lesser included offense resulted in a 10-to-2 split in favor of reckless homicide, for which Martin faces up to four years in prison.
His sentencing hearing is scheduled for July 26.
Nalepa said Martin's testimony worked in his favor.
"It showed me he had nothing to hide," he said.
He also said the jury took seriously Judge Michael Vance's instruction not to base their verdict on sympathy for either party.
"I feel sorry for the Alexander family and the Martin family," Nalepa said. "No one came out a winner in this."
Did the use of the jumpers have anything to do with the harness? Most harnesses are buckles Unless the harness is operated by the ride, I dont see how jumping a safety system could cause a harness to open.
That was probably one of the reasons that the jury found him not guilty. Whether or not he jumpered out a safety system in an electrical panel cannot affect the mechanical buckles and straps of a harness.
Even if the victim had lived, I doubt he would have known why the buckles opened.
Does this indicate that a unanimous decision was not required to convict for an offense which carries up to four years in prison as a punishment?
No, but it would have allowed the ride to operate with a dangerously-bad harness that would otherwise have rendered the ride inoperable.
From National Center for State Courts Online:
"Since 1970, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have allowed states to move away from the traditional federal jury standard of 12 members who must reach a unanimous verdict. Specifically, 6-member juries were held constitutional in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970). Nonunanimous verdicts were upheld in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972). The relaxation of traditional size and verdict requirements is most prevalent for misdemeanor cases."
"Seven states use 8- or 6-member juries for noncapital felonies, and Louisiana and Oregon do not require unanimity in such cases. Some states that continue to use a 12-member jury and require a unanimous verdict will allow parties to stipulate to a smaller, nonunanimous jury. Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia , and federal courts require unanimous verdicts in all civil cases, while 29 states require a supermajority."
For state-by-state information, see link:
I believe that this case was tried in Tennessee. According to the 1998 document, Tennessee requires unanimous verdicts for both felonies and misdemeanors.
Has there been a more recent change in Tennessee law?
This guy is possibly going to do time for a crime in a case where previously his trial would perhaps have ended in a hung jury. I think I have a new item for consideration in selecting a future residence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.