As the trial in a notorious murder dating back to the 1990s began this week, a spectator with no ties to the case sat alone in the back row of the public gallery.
The woman brought the sci-fi novel “Dune,” turning to it as prosecutors carefully laid out their case against Billy Lee Oatney Jr., a 60-year-old facing a new trial in the 1996 killing of Susi Larsen whose body was later discovered in Champoeg State Heritage Area.
The woman remained in her seat, breaking only when court was adjourned.
That’s what Washington County Circuit Judge Beth Roberts ordered after learning the woman who had been called for jury duty had ignored the judge’s order not to do any of her own research on the case.
Roberts, irate that the prospective juror had jeopardized jury selection, held the woman in contempt -- a sanction judges rarely impose on jurors. Roberts gave her two choices: Perform 20 hours of community service or attend the first day of the trial.
The dustup over wayward Juror 263 -- as she was known in court -- offers a glimpse into the essential and sometimes fraught process of choosing a jury, especially in a high-stakes murder case like Oatney’s where the defendant faces the prospect of life in prison.
Veteran criminal defense lawyer Lisa Ludwig said judges are clear with jurors: Don’t look up the case.
“They say it in, like, 10 different ways,” she said.
Jurors are repeatedly told to rely only on evidence they hear in court, not what they’ve read in the news or heard elsewhere. A juror who digs up information on their own risks causing a mistrial, lawyers said.
“You want 12 people making the decision who have all been exposed to the same universe of facts,” Ludwig said. “You don’t want some people getting outside facts and basing their decisions on it when other people don’t even know those facts.”
Court records show another juror got into trouble in Washington County last fall. In that case, Circuit Judge Eric Butterfield held the woman in contempt when she failed to return to jury service after lunch. The prospective juror then blew off a subsequent hearing on the contempt case, prompting Butterfield to issue a warrant for her arrest, records show.
The woman returned to court eventually, this time with a lawyer, and ended up with a sentence of 30 hours of community service.
This latest episode in Washington County began when the woman attended orientation for potential jurors called for the Oatney case. Roberts gave the standard admonitions, ordering them not to talk about the case or snoop around for information.
Curiosity apparently got the best of Juror 263 and earlier this month, as jury selection was underway, the judge told the lawyers for the state and Oatney that she had received an email from Juror 263.
The woman reported that she had looked up information about the case, the judge told the lawyers, according to a recording of the proceeding. It’s not clear what prompted her to report the violation to the court.
The next day, Roberts summoned the woman to her courtroom, referring to her as “Juror 263.”
Out of earshot of the prosecutors and Oatney’s defense lawyers, the judge called the woman to the table reserved for lawyers and posed a series of rapid-fire questions. A recording of the hearing was provided to The Oregonian/OregonLive by the court.
“You got the instructions that I gave you, correct?” asked Roberts, a former prosecutor appointed to the bench in 2014 by Gov. John Kitzhaber.
“Yup,” the woman said.
“And you remember that I told you that you were now under the control of the court?”
“Yup.”
“And that there were no reasons that you were to look up any information about this case. Do you remember that?”
“Yup.”
“Do you remember what I said would happen if you did that? … Failure to follow this order will find you in contempt. So can you explain to me why you willfully disobeyed my order, ma’am?”
It was a mistake, the woman told Roberts, a response that only further inflamed the judge.
“It wasn’t a mistake,” Roberts said. “It was a conscious decision, was it not?”
“It was the wrong decision,” she said.
“Why did you do that, ma’am?” Roberts pressed. “Do you have no respect for this process, no respect for the court, no respect for the Constitution … of the United States of America?”
Juror 263′s composure withered as Roberts continued.
“You think this is a game?” the judge asked. “You think this is not something that’s very important to the parties and very important to our country?”
“No, I do,” the woman said through tears.
Roberts told her she could have “tainted the entire jury.” The juror chose the option of attending the first day of the trial as punishment.
Roberts told her not to bother checking in with the court staff when she arrived.
“I know what you look like,” she said, “and I’ll know if you’re not here.”
“Sorry,” the woman said as Roberts dismissed her.
Jurors cannot be identified by name in open court under a new law, though at one point on the opening day of trial, Roberts addressed the woman using her last name. The judge told her to make sure she returned to court after the lunch break.
The woman didn’t respond to messages from The Oregonian/OregonLive, but her father did, saying his daughter had “paid her dues, which were minor.”
Lucian Pera, an authority on legal ethics and a lawyer at the firm of Adams and Reese in Memphis, Tennessee, said by now, most Americans should be familiar with the basics of jury duty.
“Almost everybody knows this from watching TV,” he said.
He said Roberts was right to be angry.
“I realize any normal person listening to that would think oh gosh, how sorry they would feel for the woman who did this and I feel sorry for her, too,” Pera said. “But on the other hand, I think the judge was not sort of overly harsh or hectoring. It’s a serious thing. It goes to the whole core of the system.”
-- Noelle Crombie; ncrombie@oregonian.com; 503-276-7184; @noellecrombie
Our journalism needs your support. Please become a subscriber today at OregonLive.com/subscribe
Ad Choices