After a juror later revealed that the jury had conducted its own research on how to zoom in on crime scene film in order to make a conviction, the attorneys for a man found guilty of murder last month are requesting a fresh trial.
The shocking admission provides insight into the highly competitive and confidential jury deliberation process.
According to court documents, jurors are sometimes cautioned against doing their own research or investigations, and this was the case during Colby Benson’s trial.
After less than eight hours of deliberations in October, Benson was found guilty of second-degree murder by seven men and five women. Circuit Judge David Rees of Multnomah County gave Benson a life sentence with the chance of release after 25 years.
Benson went on trial for the murder of 30-year-old Christopher Klein on September 11, 2020. Benson allegedly fired eight shots, hitting Klein three times in the back and once in the neck close to Burnside Street and 122nd Avenue, according to police and prosecutors. No reason was ever revealed.
A juror named Juror Number 35 in the court documents got in touch with Benson’s attorneys following the trial.
According to defense attorney Rian Peck’s plea for a new trial, juror 35 informed the attorneys that the jurors spent hours watching the films again in their original format and that they all agreed they needed to thoroughly examine the video evidence before rendering a verdict.
Surveillance footage of the shooting scene was provided by the prosecution as proof against Benson. It had been stolen from a number of locations, including TriMet, a nearby apartment complex, and a petrol station.
Juror 35 informed the attorneys that there was no unanimity after the jury’ initial viewings.
The jury was clearly stuck at one point, according to Peck.
According to the motion, one jury questioned whether it would be possible to utilize software to alter and amplify some of the video files so that jurors could focus in on the recordings.
Then, according to Peck, another juror looked up how to utilize the zoom feature on Google.
The lawyer claimed that their investigation was effective and that they were able to successfully edit the video.
According to Peck, Juror 35 revealed that their covert actions enabled them to view information that was not otherwise visible in the original format and that the enlarged video was essential to coming to a consensus.
What elements of the enlarged video contributed to the group’s agreement is unclear from the court documents.
Following the ruling, Juror 35 left the judge a direct message:
According to court documents, the juror wrote that the State had failed to fulfill their burden of proof. For them, we did it.
Juror 35 gave the court a signed declaration stating that they had changed their mind about the jury’s verdict.
According to the motion, Juror 35 was adamant at the beginning of the trial deliberations that the state had failed to meet its burden of proof based on the evidence given in the courtroom.
Juror 35 later questioned if the acts were appropriate, but he didn’t really have time to think about it in the midst of the decision-making process.
Juror 35 said, “I don’t think we could have reached a unanimous verdict if it weren’t for the jurors’ real-time improvements to these videos during deliberations.”
The jury wrote, “I never would have changed my vote to guilty if I had only watched the videos in their original format.”
According to the defense pleadings, Judge Rees instructed the jury to base their verdict solely on the evidence that was provided to them in court and to refrain from conducting any independent research into any facts or locations related to this case.
Kirsten Thompson, a retired circuit judge in Washington County, described the jurors’ accusations as alarming. The case did not involve Thompson.
According to her, it is a matter of basic justice that each side be given the chance to contest anything before it is entered into the record, after which the judge can determine if it is acceptable. Therefore, it is quite difficult if they have done anything for which the judge has not yet determined that it is acceptable.
In response to the demand for a new trial, Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Samuel Wilton wrote that Juror 35 merely reportedly zoomed in on parts of the surveillance, downplaying the importance of the juror’s admissions.
In requesting that the court reject the case for a new trial, he stated that it would not have made a difference if they had requested to play the video on the large monitor in court rather than just enlarging a section of it on the smaller display they had during deliberations.
He contended that the jury reportedly increased the visibility of a section of the film, which is equivalent to playing it on a larger screen, adjusting the screen’s brightness, or halting it at any time.
Judge Rees stated in an order on Monday that he needed to learn more about the kind of software the jurors used and how it was accessed.
Rees stated that he would like to speak with Juror 35 and the jury foreperson. He stated that he would also like to question the juror who allegedly downloaded the program.
The date of that hearing is set on December 19.
Criminal justice is the area of expertise for enterprise reporter Noelle Crombie. You can reach her at [email protected] or 503-276-7184.
Your support is essential to our journalism. Sign up for OregonLive.com now.
Stories by
Noelle Crombie
-
Oregon prison medical care under renewed scrutiny as top doctor and manager placed on leave
-
Oregon s top prison doctor placed on leave
-
Investigation into incoming Clackamas County Commissioner Melissa Fireside under review by Oregon Department of Justice
-
Oregon child killer Diane Downs appeals sentence, citing court rulings on nonunanimous verdicts
-
Portland Community College cuts ties with Pacific Office Automation over sex assault allegations
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
