Judge replaces foreperson in Peachtree Mall murder trial for refusing to deliberate

The trial of three alleged gang members charged in last year’s fatal shooting at Peachtree Mall turned chaotic Friday when complaints about the jury foreperson led to her dismissal.

She was replaced by an alternate juror, and that reset deliberations to start all over at 9 a.m. Monday.

Judge Frank Jordan Jr. individually questioned four jurors Friday afternoon after they said the foreperson was refusing to deliberate and had tried to intimidate others. They said she had made up her mind about the case two hours after deliberations began around 9:30 a.m. Thursday.

Prosecutors alleged the woman was biased by having been indicted in Harris County in 2008 for aggravated assault, a charge later reduced to misdemeanor battery.

The jurors who were questioned said she would not listen to others nor participate in their discussions. She insulted another juror by calling her “Dr. Phil,” and at one point she threatened “to snap,” and said she didn’t want to cause anyone to be arrested.

“I know she’s capable of being physical,” one juror said, adding she was talking when the foreperson “interrupted and said she was about to snap on someone,” and looked at her.

After the foreperson remarked that another juror “sounded like Dr. Phil,” she started calling that juror “Phil,” a juror said.

“There’s nothing anyone could do to change her mind,” the juror said, adding the foreperson also complained that “people were giving her evil looks.”

Jordan called in the foreperson, who complained the other jurors made up their minds too quickly: “Clearly they had disagreements with me. … Before we got into the box, it was already ‘guilty,’ ” she said, adding that she expected more conclusive evidence in the case:

“Maybe I watch too much TV, I don’t know.”

The case is the March 26, 2016 fatal shooting of Anthony Meredith at Columbus’ Peachtree Mall. The defendants are Xzavaien Trevon Jones, 19; his sister Tekoa Chantrell Young, 24; and Terell Raquez McFarland, 26.

Prosecutors claim each is associated with the Crips street gang, and they killed Meredith in retaliation for the Nov. 21, 2015, fatal shooting of Young’s boyfriend Christopher Twitty, the father of her child. Twitty also was in the Crips, investigators said.

Jones is accused of shooting Meredith 10 times outside the entrance to the mall’s food court about 7:30 p.m. the Saturday before Easter. Authorities said Young tracked Meredith outside the mall before meeting the other two, and they walked together to where Meredith was gunned down.

Jury deliberations stopped Friday as attorneys argued over how to address foreperson’s conduct.

Mark Shelnutt, who with co-counsel William Kendrick represents Young, objected to removing the juror, saying a “heated disagreement” is not unusual.

“That’s part of deliberations,” he said, adding, “She’s entitled to her conclusion,” and, “’Dr. Phil’ is not an insult.”

He moved for a mistrial based on a hung jury. So did McFarland’s attorney Nancy Miller.

Jones’ lawyer, Tim Flournoy, told Jordan he should instruct jurors to continue their deliberations.

But the jurors Jordan questioned said deliberations weren’t continuing, because the foreperson wouldn’t participate.

“She’s obstinate and done with it and not wanting to be a part of the deliberations,” said one.

“She said she didn’t have to prove anything to us,” said another.

Before the judge decided to individually question the four jurors who complained, he called the whole group in to inquire about its votes on the charges the defendants face.

The foreperson said jurors voted 11 to one on each of Jones’ charges, which are malice or intentional murder, felony murder for allegedly killing Meredith while committing the felony of aggravated assault, aggravated assault, using a firearm to commit a felony, and gang violence.

She gave the same tally on Young’s charges of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault, but said the vote on gang violence was eight to four.

For McFarland, the vote was six to six on malice murder and felony murder, seven to five on aggravated assault and five to seven on gang violence.

Some of the four jurors later questioned alone said they didn’t know those were the vote tallies, because the foreperson didn’t always vote. Sometimes she just said “I don’t know,” they said.

The jury began deliberating about 9:30 a.m. Thursday, took a lunch break at 11:30 a.m., returned at 1 p.m. and took cover during a tornado warning about 1:30. At 5 p.m., they sent Jordan a note saying they could not reach a unanimous decision on the charges, and one juror was refusing to participate.

Court adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, and jurors resumed their deliberations shortly after 9 a.m. Friday, but soon began sending the judge notes about their impasse.

About 11:20 a.m., attorneys gathered in the courtroom to debate their next move.

All the defense attorneys argued against replacing the recalcitrant juror with one of two alternates who were on standby.

Flournoy said the court had no legal basis to do that. “No juror is required to go along to get along,” he said.

Shelnutt said the same. If the juror has decided the evidence is lacking, then she should not be pressured to alter that conclusion. “She should not feel like she should have to give up her decision,” he said.

Jordan discussed with attorneys a 2010 Georgia Court of Appeals decision, Semega v. State, in which a conviction was reversed because of the method by which a juror was replaced.

The appeals court said the trial judge should make some inquiries before substituting an alternate:

“There must be some sound basis upon which the trial judge exercises his discretion to remove the juror. A sound basis may be one which serves the legally relevant purpose of preserving public respect for the integrity of the judicial process. Where the basis for the juror's incapacity is not certain or obvious, some hearing or inquiry into the situation is appropriate to the proper exercise of judicial discretion.”

Jordan referred attorneys also to the 2003 Georgia Supreme Court case Mayfield v. State, in which a conviction was challenged based on the trial judge’s questioning a lone holdout before the verdict. The juror was not replaced, but instructed to follow the law.

The court in Mayfield wrote that Georgia law “authorizes the trial court to seat an alternate juror in the place of a juror who becomes ill or for other good or legal cause is incapacitated. The trial court must exercise its discretion in making the substitution, and is free to do so even after deliberations have begun. Certainly, a juror's refusal to decide the case on the evidence under the law as charged by the court would provide legal cause for that juror's removal.”

When Jordan later announced his decision to replace the juror, he cited the 2006 Georgia Supreme Court case State v. Arnold, in which a jury foreman was removed after other jurors complained he told one of them to “go to hell” and called others “stupid” and “monkeys.”

In upholding the trial judge’s removing the juror, the Supreme Court wrote:

“The foreman's array of disruptive behavior, which went beyond the mere use of curse words, provided a sound legal basis for his removal. … While the jury room may be an appropriate place for heated debate, and cursing may sometimes occur, it does not follow that jurors must be immunized from removal for behavior which the trial court, in its broad discretion, determines to be subversive to the goals of justice.”

In a final bizarre twist, Jordan had just announced his ruling Friday evening when he got yet another note from the jury room, saying jurors had reached a verdict. He informed the attorneys.

“I’ve never experienced this before,” said Chief Assistant District Attorney Al Whitaker, a veteran lawyer.

By then, it was too late for a verdict, because the judge already had announced his decision: The foreperson would be replaced and deliberations would start over Monday.

He adjourned court for the weekend at 6 p.m.

This story was originally published April 28, 2017 at 1:33 PM with the headline "Judge replaces foreperson in Peachtree Mall murder trial for refusing to deliberate."