The mother of a young man slain in a gang shootout never should have been on a jury that considered whether a Salt Lake County deputy sheriff used unreasonable force in shooting another young man, U.S. District Judge Dee Benson ruled Monday afternoon.
Benson said the love of juror Tulaire Foreman for her late son could have spilled over as sympathy for Stevie Manzanares, who sued Salt Lake County and the man who shot him, Deputy Sheriff Vaughn Allen.Because Foreman did not tell the court about the death of her son, and she was allowed to serve on the jury, Benson threw out the verdict in favor of Manzanares and ordered a new trial.
Foreman did not tell the court of an incident in which her son died during a gang shootout in a Smith's Food and Drug parking lot two years ago. That shooting had some similarities to the wounding of Manzanares on Aug. 7, 1993, also in a Smith's parking lot.
The incident, which happened during a botched beer theft, left Manzanares, then 18, with permanent injuries.
Although Manzanares was unarmed, defense lawyers argued that Allen saw the glint of a beer can in Manzanares' hand and fired, thinking it was a gun. The jury awarded Manzanares $555,770 for medical expenses and to cover some of his lost earnings.
But after the verdict, news reports disclosed that Foreman's son had been killed in the earlier shootout. Another juror signed an affidavit that Foreman had said if she had told Benson about her son's death, she feared she would have been excluded from the jury.
"My guess is, I wouldn't have let her stay on the jury" if he had known, the judge said at the conclusion of a hearing. "I just don't see how a human being could set aside an incident that dramatic . . .
"At bottom, I want people to have a fair trial . . . and Mr. Allen is entitled to an impartial fact-finder," Benson added. He promised a new trial as soon as the parties want it.
The dispute centered on whether Foreman lied to the court, with defense lawyer Patricia J. Marlow saying Foreman did lie at the start of the trial. Neither Foreman nor any other potential juror raised a hand in response to a question by Benson in which he asked about reasons a person might not serve.
The question was centered around the fact that Manzanares is Hispanic, but it was broad enough that other aspects of the case could also have been considered.
"The court was very careful and very thorough," said Colin P. King, Manzanares' attorney, arguing against a new trial. He contended that either side could have zeroed in on other particular aspects in its own questions - such as whether any potential juror had suffered a family trauma involving a shooting.
The language of his question was "broader than race" and called for a response from Foreman, Benson said.
He added that he wanted to say publicly that Foreman was accurate in filing an affidavit in which she said she did not intend to lie to the court. She just didn't interpret the question in its broad sense.
Following the ruling, King told reporters that he had not decided whether to appeal to the circuit court. But if a second trial is held, "I not only think there's a possibility, I think there's a probability" that Manzanares will get an award larger than that given in the first.
"These facts are strong," he said. "They (the jurors) did not struggle with finding liability . . . We'll go win it again."