A judge in a murder case in Portland questioned three jurors in-depth Thursday over their guilty verdict and potential misconduct for utilizing the internet and zooming in on video evidence while deliberating.
In an attempt to determine if the two men and one woman’s attempts to examine the films more closely constituted misconduct, Multnomah County Circuit Judge David Rees addressed to them by their juror numbers.
The jury foreperson had been juror 16. To help jurors understand what transpired, jury 55 looked up how to zoom in on footage on Google. Jurors boosted the footage on their own after Juror 35 complained that the prosecution had not done its duty.
Colby Benson was convicted earlier this month by a 12-member jury of shooting and killing Christopher Klein, 30, when he was sitting in his car on September 11, 2020, close to Burnside Street and 122nd Avenue.
Due to the jury’s attempts to use the video player’s features to view the film more closely, Benson’s attorneys are requesting a new trial.
Sean Hughey, the prosecutor, admitted that juries’ zooming in on video evidence appears to be a specific issue that courts have not addressed.
However, Hughey informed the judge that the defense’s plea to retry Benson was not backed up by any law and went against our common sense.
In a cinder block meeting room at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Benson watched the hearing through a camera. He received a life sentence with the chance of release after 25 years.
The judge noted that the hearing was unique and the first in his career.
Rees summoned all of the jurors from the jury room nine stories below to his courtroom on the 12th floor, where he spoke alone, in contrast to the trial process, where prosecutors and defense attorneys examine witnesses.
He instructed each of them to take a seat in the witness box and gently questioned them about their actions and how they affected their choice.
Juror 16, the foreperson, stated that the jury viewed the video evidence using the video-playing software that was already installed on the laptop that the court had given them.
Prosecutors during the trial had submitted surveillance footage from multiple sources as evidence of Benson s guilt. Benson’s attorneys suggested that there might have been another attacker involved.
Did somebody in the jury at some point obtain some instructions on how to use the software to your knowledge? The judge inquired.
Correct, yeah, The 16th juror said.
Could you tell me what transpired? Rees inquired.
The man said the jury was poring over the video and wanted to pause the video and we were having difficulty doing that so I m, like, I know there s a way that you can play video frame by frame so we just Googled how to do that.
It s all within the capabilities of the software and system, he said. There s no additional downloading or anything like that. It s just, like, instructions on how to do it.
At one point Rees asked whether the efforts to look more closely at the footage represented a watershed moment for the jury s deliberations.
I do feel like we probably would have come to the same conclusion, Juror 16 said. It would take longer.
It was Juror 55 s turn.
Welcome back, Rees told the man as he took a seat, holding a cup of coffee. It s nice to see you again and sorry for the added intrusion on your life in the middle of a busy holiday season.
At one point, Rees noted that he had repeatedly given the instruction to jurors during the trial not to conduct their own research.
I think I probably gave it about 50 times: Do not do any independent research, he said.
His questioning of jurors suggested that the instruction may need fine-tuning.
This is something going forward that I and hopefully some of my colleagues will learn from, Rees said as he questioned Juror 55. Do you recall what instructions you received on playing the video?
I don t recall there being any specific information given on how to view the video, the man said.
Juror 55 described the software as an older media player. It s like something on my parents computer.
So, like, my computer, Ree said to light laughter from the gallery.
The man said he already knew how to use the video player features to zoom in but did one Google search in the jury room regarding how to move frame by frame through the video instead of continually hitting pause as the video advanced.
We just wanted to see it as slowly as possible, Juror 55 said. For what it s worth, it struck me as something that was entirely reasonable to do.
He said the jury sought to thoroughly examine the video.
The prosecution asked us to decide this case based on video evidence I remember that explicitly, the juror said. So we were going through the video evidence just trying to piece those things together.
Juror 35, who first raised the concern about how the jury viewed the videos, said the efforts helped her zero in on clothing and people s movement on the street.
Rees asked if she believed based on the evidence, including the videos that were slowed down and zoomed in, that Benson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I wouldn t change my verdict, she said. The other jurors agreed.
At the close of the three-hour hearing, Rees said he needed time to consider the arguments. He said he expects to have a ruling by early next year.
Noelle Crombie is an enterprise reporter with a focus on criminal justice. Reach her at 503-276-7184;[email protected]
Our journalism needs your support. Please become a subscriber today atOregonLive.com/subscribe.
Portland area homicides
-
Gresham woman dies in hospital after shooting that stemmed from argument over loud music
-
Jury fails to reach verdict for Portland Uber driver charged in deadly road rage shooting downtown
-
Man killed by Vancouver police was taking items from dumpster when cops approached, asked about plateless truck
-
Oregon prison guard kills his 16-year-old daughter, then himself, authorities say
-
Financier was driving for Uber during Portland road-rage shooting; coastal killing tied to drug binge; prolific burglar goes to prison
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!
