John Chiv: Conversation in elevator by some jurors in Widmark trial leads to questioning of every juror but results in Judge Steward ruling there was no juror misconduct

Mar 14, 2025

Conversation in elevator by some jurors in Widmark trial leads to questioning of every juror but results in Judge Steward ruling there was no juror misconduct

(CAL CRIM 201)

Yesterday was Day 25 of the Brandon and Jesse Widmark trial and the 5th day of deliberations after three weeks of jury selection, testimony and evidence. No verdict.

There was a note after lunch from jurors asking if they could end deliberations at noon today because one of the jurors had a prior appointment.

What ended up taking an hour and half was questioning of individual jurors by

Judge Steven Steward and private conversations with attorneys after HCSO Det. Brian Buihner overheard a conversation between some jurors including the jury foreperson.

Just like me, Det. Buihner has been in the courtroom. We know who the 12 jurors are. I reported in a previous post that deliberations were running late. Some law enforcement, DA Investigators and I were waiting outside courtroom 3. One of the jurors mentioned it was the foreperson running late and since only one person was not there, it was easy to figure out they were talking about. I am not going into details of Judge Steward, the attorneys remarks even though I have been taking detailed notes.

The summary is that there was no juror misconduct. I did not think there would be knowing this jury who is one of the best I have seen in the 11 years of covering Humboldt Superior Court.

Det. Buihner was in the elevator on 3/12. "Initially, four jurors were in the elevator. One juror got off on the first floor. Between the second floor and ground floor, I heard them say look up case law. The person getting off on the first floor said shouldn't do that. There was nothing said about the Widmark case. It did not appear they were discussing deliberations."

Each juror was called in individually, questioned by Judge Steward if they heard anyone discussing case law or doing research on the internet. After each juror was excused, they were told not to discuss with other jurors. Juror # 1 to juror # 8 and later juror #11 and #12 all responded with "absolutely not" or "no" or "No Sir."

Juror # 9 said, "I recall someone mentioning reading news when I got pulled in initially. " He was referring to the jury selection when jurors were asked about press coverage. Juror # 9 said nothing about discussions about deliberations.

Juror # 10 is the foreperson. "I believe someone mentioned legal language and I specifically said we weren't allowed."

Judge Steward asked Juror #10, "Was there any discussion in the elevator in the courthouse about case law; not necessarily about this case?"

"I do believe one of the other jurors mentioned conspiracy. Their husband used to be an attorney. I don't know about legal research. I took the stairs all day. Not yesterday but I believe she said something about asking her husband about conspiracy."

The juror the foreperson was referring to was questioned.

Deputy District Attorney Roger Rees is the prosecutor for this case. Ms. Andrea Sullivan is Jesse Widmark's attorney. Ms. Rebecca Linkous is Brandon Widmark's attorney.

After the jurors were all questioned and told to wait outside, Mr. Rees said, I assume name of juror. Her husband is an attorney. Maybe she will be discuss with her husband after the case."

Mr. Rees, Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Linkous all agreed there was no juror misconduct. That was Judge Steward's ruling. The jury was brought in and Judge Steward read CAL CRIM 201 and gave a general admonishment.

At 3:20, there was another note from the jury. "What if we believe they conspired to commit some crimes but not all?"

All attorneys asked Judge Steward to have them read CAL CRIM 416 again in "entirety."

Whatever the verdict is turns out to be; Judge Steward, all the attorneys, law enforcement and the jury have done an outstanding job and there has been due process. All of them should be commended because this was an intense, long and difficult trial. Ms. Sulivan has another trial, multiple cases. Ms. Linkous has multiple cases and it has been exhausting for everyone involved.

3/14: 6th day of deliberation. At 11 a.m there is a note. Possible verdict. Ms. Sullivan went into the courtroom at 11:02 a.m. followed by Mr. Rees at 11:04. Ms. Linkous and DA Eads went in at 11:10. Several law enforcement and people from the DA's office are here including DA Investigators and DA staff. Sheriff William Honsal came in later.

Jury had reached verdict on some counts. Some counts including those on lesser included options, they could not reach an unanimous verdict. Judge Steward asked them to continue deliberations. He read CAL CRIM 3551.

Jurors will be back at 9:15 on Monday.

After jurors left, Ms. Sullivan wanted to know which counts the jurors had reached a verdict on; Ms. Linkous joined in that request. Mr. Rees said the jury was still deliberating and that is private. I agree with Mr. Rees. This is not the first case jurors have been sent back to deliberate. Having that information released in chambers as Ms. Linkous suggested is unfair to the California trials where certain information and discussions are held in an open courtroom. The verdict and any such discussion should be in an open courtroom. There is no special privilege that only defendants and the prosecutor get access to that information, especially when the jurors are deliberating and could change their minds on any or all of the verdicts.

Judge Steward asked attorneys to brief the issue and be in court at 8:30 on Monday when he will make his ruling.

3/17: Judge Steward declined defense request to share what verdicts jurors had decided. Jurors resumed deliberations at 9:15. Today is Monday and an unsually busy day with more than court.

3/13 court minutes: