"Twelve Angry Men" is one of the greatest American dramas ever produced. A teleplay adapted for the stage before becoming an Oscar-nominated film, it gave audiences a peek inside a jury room. It showed how deliberations can involve a messy combination of facts, theories, and personal baggage on the way to rendering a decision that will profoundly affect the lives of others.
In real life, jury deliberations are private affairs, locked away to ensure no outside interference can influence the pursuit of justice. Every law student learns about how juries are selected and how they work.
This makes a prosecutor's decision to observe a jury through security cameras even more puzzling. While every lawyer would love to listen in on jury deliberations, there's a reason they can't. It's a mistake that got him suspended for six months and may provide a convicted murderer with a mistrial.
Hey, This Is My Favorite Show
On June 29, 2018, Robert Kent Kraft stabbed Justin David Johnson in a trailer park near Oologah, Oklahoma. The knife punctured Johnson's heart, killing him instantly. When questioned by the police, Kraft claimed that Johnson started the fight and he only acted in self-defense. Witnesses disputed Kraft's story, and a police investigation led to Kraft being charged with first-degree murder.
The trial began on June 27, 2022. The lead prosecutor was Issac Seth Brantly Shields, the Assistant District Attorney and Chief of the Criminal Division for Craig, Mayes, and Rogers Counties. The case was given to the jury for deliberations at about 3 p.m. on the afternoon of July 1.
The Oklahoma courthouse was still using COVID-19 safety protocols. This meant that instead of being sent to the tight quarters of the usual jury room, the jurors were sent to an unused courtroom. Unlike the jury chamber, the courtroom contained cameras that covered about 95% of the room.
At around 5 p.m. on the same day, Shields was given access to the security office that had the live video feed from the jurors' courtroom. Shields later claimed he was summoned to deal with an ongoing security situation, but officers in the room testified that this wasn't accurate.
Claiming curiosity as to what was taking so long and boredom from waiting, Shields remained in the security and began watching the jury deliberations. There was no audio, and attempts to read documents were unsuccessful. Shields left frequently to smoke, eat food brought by his fiancée, and respond to jury questions. At some point, he had his second chair, ADA George Gibbs, join him in the office.
In conversations with the judge presiding over the case and updates to his superiors, Shields didn't mention that he was observing the jury. He later texted Gibbs to describe the jurors pantomiming stabbing motions. As it got close to 8 p.m., Shields texted Gibbs to come to the security office, confident the jurors had "hit G," which meant a conviction.
Soon after, the jury delivered a guilty verdict and recommended a life sentence. The judge set a date for the formal sentencing six weeks later. Shields left for a planned vacation, pleased that justice had been served.
Was He Sick During That Day of Law School?
Officers in the security office, concerned about Shields' behavior, alerted their superiors. After the trial judge was alerted, he contacted the district attorney.
When he returned from his vacation on July 11 and was questioned by the DA, Shields admitted he'd watched the deliberations but "didn't see a problem with it." He claimed to have been in the office for about 30 minutes. Security footage of the office would show him there for 132 minutes of the 168 minutes recorded. His assertion that the video feed of the courtroom was grainy and difficult to see was also proven inaccurate.
The DA disqualified his office from the investigation. Shields reported himself to the Oklahoma Bar Association for violation of Title 21, Section 588 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which forbids the observation of a jury in deliberations. He also resigned from his roles as ADA and Chief of the Criminal Division for Rogers County.
In response to the Oklahoma Bar's complaint against him, Shields argued that he committed no acts that constituted professional misconduct. He reasoned that observing the jury didn't influence them and didn't provide him with any information that allowed him to affect the trial.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma did not feel the same way. Agreeing with the findings of the Oklahoma Bar, the court ruled that Shields had engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation that damaged his trustworthiness as an attorney and violated multiple Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.
Shields was given a six-month suspension and ordered to pay over $6,000 in court costs. Lawyers for Kraft responded to the news of Shields' misconduct by filing a motion for a mistrial. The case is still pending.
Related Resources
- What Are Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Court Can Consider Attorney's Ability To Pay Sanctions (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- What Is the Role of a Jury in a Criminal Case? (FindLaw's Criminal Law Basics)
