GREENVILLE – Stephen LaRoque’s attorneys would like to take it from the top and go again.
In a motion filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, attorney Joe Cheshire asked for the guilty verdicts in his fraud trial to be set aside.
The cause, same as the one that led to Judge Malcolm Howard vacating guilty verdicts on counts No. 11 and 12, is the outside research conducted by Juror No. 3. Howard ruled the research -- IRS online guidelines on S corporations – violated LaRoque’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, in regard to the tax fraud charges. But, he let stand the verdicts on the first 10 charges.
In the motion, Cheshire writes Juror No. 11 stated in an affidavit that Juror No. 3 voted not guilty on all counts before the research, and subsequently changed his vote on all counts to guilty.
Juror No. 3 stated in an affidavit, “Before Friday, June 7, 2013, the jury had not reached unanimous guilty verdicts on any count.”
He goes on to say, “This research influenced my verdicts on each of the counts. Based on my research, I changed my vote from not guilty on all counts to guilty on all counts. If I had not conducted the home internet research, I would not have changed my verdict on any of the counts. “If it were not for me conducting this home internet research, the jury would have remained hung on all counts indefinitely.”
Juror No. 3 also mentioned he explained his decision-making process with the other jurors, and the research covered laws regarding deferred compensation, which was both at the heart of the federal government’s prosecution and LaRoque’s defense.
Or, as Cheshire writes in the motion, “the defendant’s ‘total underlying defense.’”
Among the case law Cheshire cites is the federal case In re Beverly Hills Fire Litigation, in which the judge set aside the entire verdict because of the actions of one juror.
“While influence on a single juror may be enough to necessitate reversal and remand, the error is particularly grievous because a unanimous verdict was required and the juror communicated his findings to other jurors,” the judge wrote.
Cheshire notes the reticence of going another three weeks on the same matter by leading his conclusion with, “This was an unfortunate occurrence for all involved.” However, if Howard agrees and sets aside the jury’s verdict on all counts, it’ll be up to the U.S. Attorney’s Office to try the case again.
LaRoque’s attorneys were unable to be reached prior to press time. The U.S. Attorney’s Office typically doesn’t comment on pending or ongoing matters.
Wes Wolfe can be reached at 252-559-1075 and Wes.Wolfe@Kinston.com. Follow him on Twitter @WolfeReports.