Juror denies wrongdoing in suspended lawyer's case
Toolbox
By Brent Curtis STAFF WRITER - Published: May 20, 2009
Sean Alvarez said the only research he did while a juror on the Melvin B. Neisner case was to look up the definition of the word "hinder."
Now, after an afternoon court hearing concerning the Killington man's complaint that Alvarez's activities tainted the jury's verdict, the issue rests with Judge Thomas Zonay to decide whether a new trial is warranted for the former traffic court judge.
The outcome of the motion in Rutland District Court could affect Neisner's ability to practice law in the future. The suspended lawyer has a hearing pending before the state Professional Responsibility Board, which is considering what sort of disciplinary measures to take against Neisner for violating a professional conduct rule by being convicted of a felony.
Neisner, who was found guilty of a felony count of hindering a police investigation as well as misdemeanor convictions of grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle and leaving the scene of an accident and lying to police, challenged those convictions in February on the grounds that a juror used his computer for research prior to jury deliberations in the case.
Neisner's attorney, Stephen Klein, also sought court approval to seize and examine the juror's computer.
The computer hasn't been searched yet — Zonay is reviewing the request and a motion to quash the subpoena filed by Alvarez's attorney — but the court did hear Tuesday from the juror.
Alvarez, who was the jury foreman during the trial, said the research he did only amounted to looking up the word "hinder" — a term central to the most serious charge Neisner was convicted of.
"I remember I had a question about the definition of 'hinder' so I looked it up," Alvarez said. "I don't remember if I looked it up on the computer or in the dictionary on the counter."
Alvarez said he didn't write the definition down or share it with other jurors and he said looking up the word didn't change his belief that the definition of hinder was to "slow or impede."
But just the fact that he looked it up may have been contrary to the instructions that Alvarez and other jurors swore to follow while serving as jurors.
At the beginning of each day of the trial, jurors were asked if they had read any media accounts about the case, spoken with anyone about the case or conducted their own investigations into the matter at hand.
Asked by Klein if he believed his research had violated the court's instructions, Alvarez answered "wholeheartedly no."
Klein argued Tuesday that an inspection of Alvarez's home computer could bring to light evidence of further research. But Alvarez's attorney Matthew Hart said looking through his client's computer would represent an invasion of privacy.
"It would involve having to take out the hard drive and research forensically what's inside," Hart said after the hearing. "This is his family's private computer with everything from his banking information to his kids' homework on it."
Hart also argued that the spotlight that his client was under "puts a bad cloud over the judicial process."
Neisner's motion for a new trial came about after a series of conversations between Alvarez and a mutual friend of Neisner's who discussed the case during youth basketball games at the Rutland Town School. The mutual friend, Gerald Garrow Jr., later recounted his conversations with Alvarez to Neisner.
Alvarez said he initially discussed the case with Garrow because he and Garrow were members of the same social circle and he wanted to soothe any hurt feelings about the verdict.
"I didn't want him to think I was responsible for putting his friend away," he said.
Alvarez told the court he told Garrow that he was "adequately prepared" for the trial due to his background in occupational health and safety and that the verdict the jury reached was fair. He said he didn't recall saying telling Garrow that he had done any research.
But Garrow, who took the witness stand after Alvarez, said Alvarez told him he did "some research" and he thought he might have mentioned that some of it was done by computer.
Zonay didn't make a ruling at the end of the hearing. Instead the judge said he planned to consider the arguments and issue a written decision. Zonay gave Klein and Rutland County State's Attorney James Mongeon two weeks to file additional arguments.
brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com
40