Prosecutors have filed a request with the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal Judge Stacy Cook’s decision to grant Ahmad Williams a new trial in the death of his infant son.
Williams was convicted Aug. 11, 2023, for the murder of his 10-month-old son a year earlier.
On May 9, Judge Cook ruled one of the jurors in Williams’ trial brought in “extraneous prejudicial information” in the form of personal medical expertise that went beyond the evidence presented in the case, swaying several jurors from innocent to guilty votes.
The state’s motion for leave to appeal, filed on Monday, asks the appellate court to hear a debate over Judge Cook’s decision.
At the heart of these arguments is a debate about what constitutes “extraneous prejudicial information.” Ohio law dictates that to meet this standard, a juror must bring in information that goes beyond standard common sense, educational, or work experience, but instead comes from outside research.
In the state’s motion, submitted by Lucas County Assistant Prosecutor Evy Jarrett, she argues opinions shared by Juror 3, based on his work as a Registered Nurse, do not qualify as such, especially because Ohio and a majority of states generally allow broad leniency for jurors to incorporate personal experience.
The state also points out in its motion that the defense had the opportunity to challenge Juror 3 in the jury selection process, and that permitting him to serve waived its right to object to his outside experience.
Judge Cook’s May 9 decision to grant a retrial came after a juror from the case submitted a letter to the court explaining she felt like she had been improperly convinced by a fellow juror to vote guilty based on his medical expertise. In a rare occurrence, Judge Cook brought back all members of the jury to testify about deliberations, with many concurring the juror “did a better job proving this than the prosecutor” and he had “filled in” medical testimony not discussed in the trial.
However, when polled immediately after the verdict, all the jurors agreed that the decision was their own. Moreover, in their testimony, several jurors also said that Juror 3 did not work to persuade them in deliberations but rather to inform them based on his experience.
Those deliberations lasted 2½ hours before the jury convicted Williams of the murder of his 10-month-old son. The defense argued that Williams dropped his son by accident, but the prosecution argued it was abuse. In deliberations, Juror 3 told other jurors the victim “has to have been shaken ..., and that’s what happened,” based on what he had seen in his time as a nurse.
In addition to legal arguments about what constitutes “extraneous prejudicial information,” the state expressed concern about the precedent a retrial might set for jury privacy standards. Deliberations are typically absolutely confidential to protect jurors from backlash for controversial decisions in the form of harassment from lawyers or other interested parties.
The defense has the right to file a brief opposing the state’s request for leave to appeal.
First Published June 11, 2024, 9:36 p.m.
