After outside info sways Avoyelles jury, new trial ordered for man

After finding that an Avoyelles Parish jury let outside information sway their verdict, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal in November vacated a man's conviction and ordered a new trial for him.

Latracus Henry was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm by a 10-2 vote by jurors in his trial presided over by former Judge Mark A. Jeansonne of the 12th Judicial District Court. He originally had been charged with second-degree murder in the 2013 shooting death of Bunkie resident Dana Schenk, but he was not tried on that charge.

The information about Schenk's death wasn't admitted at trial, either.

But, once jurors retired to deliberate, it became apparent that they knew details about Schenk's death. Jurors sent Jeansonne a note, asking whether information discussed about Schenk's death disqualified them from the case.

While the defense asked for a mistrial, the prosecution stated that the jury only needed a written reminder that they only could consider evidence entered during the trial. Jeansonne agreed with the prosecution.

Jeansonne sent back a note, telling jurors that. Shortly after, the verdict was returned. But the issue came up again as jurors were being polled.

"We should have been disqualified, because that influenced a lot of people," said one unidentified juror, according to the transcript.

The issue was discussed further by Jeansonne, Avoyelles Parish District Attorney Charles Riddle III and one or more jurors.

Later, at his sentencing hearing, Henry was found to be a habitual offender. He was sentenced to 26 years in prison at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court was wrong in not disqualifying the jury and in not declaring a mistrial.

The appeals court panel of judges agreed.

"The record shows that this information became a matter of general discussion within the jury. Ms. Schenk’s death became an important enough topic that the jurors needed to consult the judge about whether they ought to be disqualified," reads the opinion.

The panel noted that jurors weren't recalled into the courtroom so they could be asked about the information that they had learned, or whether they could render an impartial verdict now that they knew about it.

"The trial court’s failure to recall and question the jurors should not denigrate the gravity of the jury’s concerns. Rather, the trial court’s failure to ensure the jury’s continuing impartiality, coupled with the fact that the jurors themselves believed disqualification may have been warranted, shows actual prejudice to the defendant that made a fair trial impossible," reads the opinion.

Information on whether a new trial date has been set wasn't immediately available, according to a spokesperson with the district attorney's office. A message was left for Riddle.