Penalty Phase and Juror Misconduct

[MXB]

Prior to the penalty phase, the state threatened to introduce evidence that Mason had assaulte another woman several years earlier, his criminal record and other unaduducated criminal behaviour if Mason introduced any of the mitigating evidence it believed Mason planned to introduce. The trial court ruled that such evidence would be admissable.

Despite the existence of compelling evidence in mitigation, counsel never offered into evidence or testimony concerning Mason's life history.

The jury did not hear any of the extensive evidence in mitigation. The penalty phase presentation to the jury covered fewer than 60 pages of transcript despite the existence of this compelling mitigation.


After considerable deliberation, the jury indicated it was "UNABLE TO REACH A UNANIMOUS DECISION ON ANY ONE OF THE SENTENCING OPTIONS".

The court inquired whether the foreman thought they could reach a verdict if they were given additional time.

The foreman responded , "NO".

Despite this unequivocal response, the trial court sent the jury back to the jury room to deliberate further. The next day the ALL WHITE jury returned with a death verdict.

The trial court accepted the jury's death verdict and sentenced Mason to death for aggravated murder.


JUROR MISCONDUCT.

In his motion for a new trial, Mason demonstrated that one juror SLEPT throughout the trial.

That another juror remarked to other jury members-- prior to hearing all the evidence on the case that Mason should have pled guilty.

Another juror made racist remarks during the trial, joking about black people doing nothing but going on beer runs and drinking beer.

Another juror made derogatory comments about the use of "dew rags" while derisively imitating Mason, using "black slang" and "jive talk".

Yet another juror conducted an independent examination on a gun that was similar to the gun introduced at trial and shared this information with the other jurors.


The trial court refused to permit any testimony on how this misconduct affected the deliberations at either the trial or penalty phases, and denied a Motion for a New Trial.


Because the jury was denied the opportunity to hear compelling expert opinion that would have castdoubt on the State's theory and raised doubt as to whether Chris Dennis rather than Maurice Mson committed this crime.


The state withheld material exculpatory and mitigating evidence under Brady v Maryland, specifically evidence demonstrating that another person witnessed Chris Dennis ritualistically kill Robin Dennis, significant prior witness statements demonstrating that the evidence was as compelling that Chris Dennis rather than Maurice Mason committed this crime.

Juror's didn't get to hear how Mason had saved another prisoner's life while incarcerated prior to trial.