In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently declined to review State v. Joseph, a case that raised issues of juror bias during a controversial trial in Springfield, Ohio.
On August 22, 2023, a tragic accident occurred when a school bus was struck by a vehicle driven by Hermanio Joseph, a Haitian immigrant. One child died. Several others were severely injured. The accident was widely publicized with explicit details of the crash spread throughout the community.
In the Spring of 2024, a jury convicted Mr. Joseph of two counts of manslaughter and sentenced him to 9 to 13 years in prison. On appeal to the Second District, he raised three issues. Most notably, Mr. Joseph argued that the trial court erred in denying and failing to reconsider his motion for change in venue, due to the high media coverage of the case. Mr. Joseph contended that pervasive media coverage surrounding his case created community bias that would preclude a fair and impartial trial. He asserted that such publicity would result in a prejudiced jury incapable of rendering an unbiased verdict. Accordingly, he argued that a change of venue was warranted to transfer the proceedings to another county where prospective jurors were unfamiliar with the case and less likely to be influenced by pretrial publicity.
Furthermore, Mr. Joseph provided actual evidence of juror bias from the trial record itself. The Court of Appeals wrote:
Juror 10, however, is a closer call as to actual bias. As to the question of the Haitian community, Juror 10 noted that while she had nothing personal against Haitians and had no experience with anyone from that background, she had heard negative things.
Nevertheless, the appellate court, like the trial court, found that this did not amount to sufficient bias to excuse her. The court continued to evaluate Juror 10, though, because of a potential connection to the crash. The juror’s granddaughter worked at the victims’ school, and when the trial court asked if she could be unbiased, she admitted to being unsure. The juror shared that she spoke to her granddaughter “extensively” about the incident. Ultimately, the Second District mitigated this concern because the juror divulged that she had relatives in law enforcement and could remain fair and impartial in that respect.
Despite the concerns regarding this juror’s questionable ability to be impartial, the Second District upheld the trial court’s findings, as well as Mr. Joseph’s conviction. When Mr. Joseph appealed the Second District’s decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, they declined to review the case.