The long-running food safety drama that is now the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) criminal case took another important turn last week when the convictions of Stewart Parnell, Michael Parnell, and Mary Wilkerson were upheld by the trial court judge. That was followed by federal Judge W. Louis Sands ordering all the parties back into court on July 1 and 2 “to support or oppose objections to Pre-sentence Investigative Reports, restitution, and any other matters that must be resolved prior to sentencing.”
- That during jury selection, Juror 34 said Juror 35 said all the Defendants were guilty because their actions results in the deaths of nine people.
- The Court reminded Juror 34 that all venire (jury pool) members were instructed to inform the Court if any person said anything about the case.
- Juror 34 acknowledged remembering that instruction, but did not do so, claiming fear or newness as a juror.
- Juror 34 also said several unnamed jurors did their own research over the course of the trial and discovered the Defendants “killed nine people.”
Sands also learned at the hearing that Juror 34 came to the attention of the defense after having a “personal encounter” with defendant Wilkerson, and that Juror 34 felt responsible for her conviction. At the second hearing, Juror 35 denied making the statements attributed to the juror and claimed to have no knowledge whatsoever of the nine deaths. Sitting next to Juror 35 was Juror 37, who said that Juror 35 did not say anything about the guilt or innocence of the defendants. In questioning all but of one of the original 18 jurors and alternates, Sands came to the conclusion that “many of of the answers given by Juror 34 at the sealed October 24, 2014 hearing were vague and generalized without much more specificity than the information contained in Juror 34’s affidavit. That affidavit was admittedly prepared by defense counsel and signed by Juror 34. “Throughout the sealed proceedings held on alleged juror misconduct, the Court only uncovered one juror who could be termed biased: Juror 34. Juror 34 stated that Juror 34 was emotional during a conversation with Wilkerson following the conclusion of this case and felt personally responsible for Wilkerson’s conviction,” Sands continued. “The Court declines to assign any weight to Juror 34’s testimony due to that Juror’s expressed bias in favor of Wilkerson.”