Excused Juror in Ted Stevens Trial Went to a Horse Race: What to Do?

Today, the Washington Post reported that one of the jurors in the corruption trial of Alaska senator Ted Stevens lied to the judge to get relieved of the duty of continuing on the jury. She told the judge her father had died in California, then went to California to attend the Breeders Cup horse race. The juror, Marian Hinnant, appeared before U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan and admitted that she lied to get out of staying until the end of the trial. She said she had already bought plane reservations and tickets to the horse race before the trial started. The judge let her go without penalty.


There were other problems with the jury in this particular trial. The jury could not reach a conclusion because one of the jurors refused to cooperate. The other jurors complained about juror No. 9's "violent outbursts." On October 23rd, Ms. Hinnant was excused by the judge so that she could go to California to attend her father's funeral. When the judge lost contact with Hinnant, the trial threatened to founder, but an alternate juror eventually took her place. Finally, the jury did convict Senator Stevens of 7 counts of corruption. Now, Stevens is saying the verdict should be set aside. The Stevens trial began in Washington, DC on September 27, 2008. The case went to the jury on October 22nd, and the verdict was rendered on October 27th. Thus, the jurors in the trial were essentially tied up for a month. Ms. Hinnant told CNN that she "didn't think the trial would take that long." She has a point, but should she be allowed to duck out of the trial without some penalty?


Jury service is a public duty. According to information provided about jury service in the federal courts, a juror may be required to serve for up to one month, or until the trial is completed. In theory, jurors are told this in advance, and jurors may ask for a temporary deferral of service in the case of "undue hardship or extreme inconvenience." Based on that standard, if Ms. Hinnant had asked to be excused from jury service because she had already paid for a trip to the Breeders Cup, her request would most likely have been denied. On the other hand, if she had told the judge the truth about her situation on October 23rd and said, "Judge, this is preying on my mind so much that I don't think I can make a proper decision," he might very well have excused her and appointed an alternate, but how would it have looked to the other jurors? After all, they had lives, too, and by that time I'm sure all of them wanted to be done with the trial.

It turns out that Ms. Hinnant is a certified paralegal who works for a mortgage company, so she might be expected to have some idea about what jury service entails. On the other hand, she was rambling and incoherent when she appeared before Judge Sullivan on November 3rd, although she refused to answer questions from reporters about whether she was on medication or had been hospitalized. The question remains: Should a juror who lied to the judge and essentially walked out of jury deliberations in a high-profile case be penalized in some way, even if it is a token penalty? If there are no consequences whatever, what message does that send to the public about the importance of jury service?

The State of Maryland's court system website states: "Jury service is one of the most important civic obligations that citizens have. To be available to serve on a jury is both a privilege and an obligation for all Marylanders." The North Carolina Court System website proclaims: "The only contact most citizens will ever have with the court system is through jury service. The right to a trial by jury is one of our most important rights and is guaranteed by the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. By serving as a juror, citizens are helping to preserve this freedom." And the Philadelphia courts website begins the section on jury service with the words: "Jury Service is one of the highest duties of citizenship and it is an essential element of our democratic society. Citizens selected as jurors participate in a decision-making process in order to reach a verdict or decision of guilt or innocence in both civil and criminal cases. Service as a juror provides an interesting opportunity for citizens to learn more about our system of justice and how it works. Nearly 100,000 citizens are called to duty in Philadelphia each year. " These lofty statements have little relation to the fact that many people consider jury service to be a troublesome disruption of their normal lives. Most people who appear for jury service sit around for a day or two and then are dismissed. But a person who is chosen to serve on a trial jury may be tied up for weeks. Very few people look upon this prospect with pleasure, so jury duty has to be an obligation with an "or else" attached to it. Otherwise, who would show up when the letter comes from the Commissioner of Jurors?

The Philadelphia website warns: "If you fail to respond to your Jury Summons, the law provides for the imposition of a fine not to exceed $500 and imprisonment not to exceed 10 days." But that's if you fail to show up when you're called for jury service in the first place. What happens if you show up, are chosen for a trial, hear the evidence, begin deliberations, then give a false reason to be excused so you can go to a horse race? The answer in Marian Hinnant's case is nothing. "I am thoroughly convinced you would not have been able to continue to deliberate," Judge Sullivan stated when he heard Ms. Hinnant's rambling and incoherent story. I agree with him, but wouldn't it have been easier if she had told him the truth in the first place? And shouldn't he have given her at least a slap on the hand for what she did?

In Yorkshire, they say, "There's nowt so queer as folk." The case of Marian Hinnant seems to prove that adage, but we're still left on the horns of a dilemma. Or maybe jury service isn't quite so important after all?