A Lucas County Common Pleas Court case was on the verge of a mistrial Thursday after jurors conducted unauthorized research during their deliberations.
The jury heard testimony this week in the case of Christopher Brown, 46, of the 3600 block of Chase Street. He was indicted by a Lucas County grand jury on March 21, 2019, on six counts of rape, first-degree felonies, and one count of corrupting another with drugs, a second-degree felony, for sexually assaulting a young girl.
The allegations stem from Oct. 1, 2014, through Jan. 16, 2016.
The victim took the stand on Tuesday to tell the graphic details of the assaults — often breaking down in tears and needing to take breaks as she spoke of the traumatic incidents. Mr. Brown, however, denies such claims.
The jury began deliberating around 1 p.m. Wednesday to approximately 4:30 p.m., with deliberations beginning again Thursday morning.
The jurors posed a question Thursday about online research regarding the law — which are contrary to the judge’s instructions, Judge Dean Mandros said outside of the jurors’ presence.
“This alone would serve as a foundation for you to ask for a mistrial,” the judge said to Mr. Brown. “If granted, that would mean the jury is discharged and the case would start over with a new trial.”
Alternatively, the jury could be questioned regarding the “unauthorized research,” or the parties can continue as is, the judge said.
Assistant county prosecutor Charles McDonald suggested the jury be questioned to get more details before making a final decision, while defense attorney James Popil suggested a mistrial as it appears the jurors conducted independent research beyond matters presented in court.
“The process is tainted, the jury is tainted, and a new jury needs to be selected,” Mr. Popil said.
The jury was brought into the courtroom to further question the unauthorized research, which was connected to the corrupting another with drugs offense.
“We were having a discussion about ‘access’ yesterday and some people couldn’t agree what the word’s definition truly was. So, we looked it up on a smartphone, Webster’s. And then we looked up the Ohio Revised Code and what was typed in it and if the definition was actually in it,” a female juror said to the judge.
The juror said one person typed in the information on the phone, but several juror members discussed it. All jurors were individually questioned and each confirmed that was the only element that was researched outside of the court walls.
After a brief meeting with his attorney, Mr. Brown decided to proceed with the matter, despite Mr. Popil’s recommendation for a mistrial.
Prosecutors agreed to dismiss the drug-related charge.
Jurors are able to ask questions to the court during their deliberations, Judge Mandros reminded them. In court, the judge said he will have to re-evaluate his policy regarding devices in the jury room.
“I will say once again, you may not ask for any outside material or have access to any outside material to assist you in further defining the words in the jury instruction. If a word has not been defined for you, as I said, you use the normal definitions that you’ve come to understand through your normal, adult lives,” Judge Mandros said.
Jurors continue to deliberate on six charges of rape.
First Published February 13, 2020, 5:56 p.m.
