YNW Melly Trial: The State's discovery violation and jurors affected by testimony
YNW Melly Trial: The State's discovery violation and jurors affected by testimony
The guilt phase of YNW Melly's trial continued this week. Here's a recap of what happened this week.
Rapper YNW Melly (Jamell M. Demons) is on trial in Broward County, Florida, for two counts of first-degree murder. He was 19 at the time of the shooting.
The trial is currently in the guilt phase,1 which proceeded after the Court denied the defense’s motions for mistrial based on testimony late last week. (More on that here.) This week, two updates from the trial:
On Wednesday, the Court found that the State made a discovery violation.
On Thursday, the Court spent considerable time addressing a juror who was affected by testimony.
State Sanctioned for Discovery Violation
The Florida Supreme Court has explained that “Florida’s criminal discovery rules are designed to prevent surprise by either the prosecution or the defense. Their purpose is to facilitate a truthful fact-finding process.”2 Under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, both the State and defense are required to disclose certain information to the other side about information that could be used at trial. This information is exchanged in a process referenced as “discovery.” The rules make clear that this duty is continuing:
If, subsequent to compliance with the rules, a party discovers additional witnesses or material that the party would have been under a duty to disclose or produce at the time of the previous compliance, the party shall promptly disclose or produce the witnesses or material in the same manner as required under these rules for initial discovery.3
The purpose of these rules is to avoid “trial by ambush.” While there are similar rules in the civil context, the Florida Supreme Court has explained that “the policy of avoiding trial by ambush or surprise has even greater application in the criminal context, where the stakes are much higher and the obligation of the State to see that justice is done is much greater than that of the private litigants in a civil dispute.”4
During the YNW Melly trial on Wednesday, the State attempted to present testimony related to additional testing of evidence that the State had not provided to the defense. The Court found that the State made a discovery violation by not providing the information to the defense until trial. As a sanction for the violation, the Court ruled that the State could not present the testimony. In making his ruling, the Judge said he wasn’t familiar with the caselaw on the subject but that it was a matter of “fundamental fairness.”
A video of the discussion on this issue is available here.
News article:
Effects on Jurors
Last week, one juror was in the hospital for what the Judge reported was “dehydration.”
This week, a juror asked for a break from testimony due to an anxiety attack. On Thursday (June 22), Judge Murphy allowed a Broward County Sheriff’s Office detective to testify wearing a black ski mask in order to hide his identity.
Arguing for the witness to be able to testify with the ski mask, the State Attorney told the Judge this has been allowed in several cases before. The defense argued that allowing the witness to do so would violate YNW Melly’s constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause to the Sixth Amendment. During argument, it was revealed that the witness wore the same type of mask during his pre-trial deposition in this case. (Video of the argument and testimony is available here.)
The witness also testified outside the presence of the jury that he’s testified earlier this year with the mask and that there have been credible threats on his life. He said there is currently a credible threat on his life and that $50,000 is being offered for his death. He said he intercepted the bounty during a gang investigation. He testified that the purpose of him testifying with a mask is “to protect [his] family.”
The witness’s testimony in front of the jury begins at 2:05:00 of the video available here. The video does not show his face.
At around 2:43:00, during the testimony, the bailiff is seen walking toward the Judge and then the Judge announces a short recess. Discussion revealed that the Judge had received two messages from a juror. In the first message, the juror asked:
“Why does he get to see us if we don’t get to see him?”
In the second message, the juror told the Judge that the witness’s testimony caused her to have an anxiety attack:
I need a moment. I can’t listen properly. When I was a child, I’d seen someone get robbed and I am having an anxiety attack.
Attorneys then, outside the presence of the jury, debated the cause of the concern and the appropriate approach to addressing the issue and presented options to the Court. The Judge said he was concerned and was not sure how to proceed. The Judge said he was open to reconsidering his ruling about the mask and said:
I did this because he told me he was in fear for his safety and his family’s safety . . . .
Discussion of the messages resumes at 5:11:45 when the Judge questions the juror who submitted the messages. She told the Judge she did not think it was appropriate for the witness to testify wearing the mask, especially without warning to the jury. She said it was shocking. However, she said she does feel she can serve on the jury.
The defense asked for the Judge to clear the courtroom (i.e., remove media and other spectators) and allow the witness to testify without a mask.
After further discussion with counsel, the jury then returned from lunch. The Judge gave the jury an instruction regarding the witness’s appearance. After another sidebar, the Officer’s testimony continued.
News articles:
Also, a docket entry Wednesday afternoon shows that a juror submitted an inquiry about how long the trial will continue.
Prior TFDP Coverage of YNW Melly’s Trial
Trial court considered motion for mistrial
Trial court denied motion for mistrial
As explained here, capital trials in Florida proceed in two phases: (1) the guilt phase, and (2) the penalty phase. If the jury convicts the defendant of first-degree murder (for which the State has notified its intent to seek death) in the guilt phase, then the trial proceeds to the penalty phase, where the jury is asked to make a recommendation as to the appropriate sentence—life in prison without parole, or death.
Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138, 1144 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386, 388 (Fla. 1979)).
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(j).
Scipio, 928 So. 2d at 1145.