Justice Anita Allen ordered a retrial before a new jury in the Mario Miller case yesterday, as the court discovered that a juror sitting on the case was closely connected to a family member of the accused.
At the beginning of what would have been the fourth week of the Mario Miller murder trial, a woman juror was cited by the bench for contempt of court in failing to disclose her affinity to or association with the brother of the accused.
The juror, who the media was advised by the court not to name, was given two days to seek legal advise and to appear in court on Wednesday at l0am to show cause why she should not be held in contempt.
Yesterday, Justice Allen informed the court that it was brought to her attention, last week Thursday, that an anonymous caller to CDU informed the police that one of the jurors worked at the same establishment as the brother of the accused.
Justice Allen told the court that in the presence of the accused and counsel she made enquiries of the Human Resources Department of the establishment, which she did not name, and it was discovered that the information was true.
She said that it was further discovered that the juror and the brother of the accused had worked in the same department and in very close proximity to each other for over three years.
Also the nature of their duties necessitated communication between the juror and the brother of the accused, and they had socialised at work related functions on occasions.
Justice Allen, addressing the jury, said that prior to them being sworn in she made a number of enquiries pertaining to their affinity or association with the parties or witnesses in the trial. She said that it was also asked if there was any reason why any of the jurors could not or should notsit to hear thye matter. She told the court that a number of jurors disclosed their association, some of them, Justice Allen said, were disqualified, including a former classmate of a counsel in the matter and others were allowed to sit.
“If the juror in question knew of this connection before the trial, she ought properly to have disclosed it to the court at that time, and I would have disqualified her from sitting to hear this matter. But even if she did not know before she was sworn, that her fellow employee was a brother of the accused – his name featured in this trial from as early as the first or second day and that ought to have put her on enquiry.
She added that she does not know the extent of the juror’s knowledge of the accused, however, she said that it is sufficient that the juror possibly has knowledge of the accused, which creates a potential for bias.
“It is regrettable that we have lost three weeks of judicial time, counsel’s time and yours. The state has wasted thousands of dollars without a result. Be that as it may, in the circumstances, I must discharge you from returning a verdict in this matter and I hereby order a new trial before a fresh jury at the next sitting,” said Justice Allen.
Justice Allen then turned to Ryan and Ricardo Miller, the accused, and informed them of her decision. Ricardo was further remanded pending his retrial and Ryan’s bail continues on the same terms and conditions. The accused were told to appear for trial when notified.
The juror in question was then called out by Justice Allen to face the Bar.
Leslie Miller, member of parliament and father of the victim in this case, told The Tribune yesterday afternoon: “My family is greatly disappointed in the events that have taken place, we were hoping that by Wednesday this matter would have been behind us as a family. Whatever happens, happens and it is unfortunate that it did.”
By TIFFANY GRANT Tribune Staff Reporter
