Evidence of Juror Misconduct Presented in Hearing Following Guilty Verdict of Co-Defendants 

By Jenna Ferrick [former] - February 3, 2023
Court | Daily Stories | Homicides | Shooting | Suspects | Victims |

After nearly two months following the guilty verdicts of co-defendants James Mayfield and Robert A. Moses, the court reconvened at a status hearing on Feb. 3 to put forward a motion, suggesting juror misconduct. 

After the jury delivered the verdict on Dec. 8, 2022, two witnesses came forward claiming that Moses went to high school with one of the trial jurors. 

Mayfield, 23, and Moses, 24, were convicted of first-degree murder while armed, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, conspiracy, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill while armed, assault with intent to kill with an aggravating circumstance of the victim being vulnerable because of mental or physical infirmity, and aggravated assault while armed for killing 17-year-old Jamahri Sydnor on Aug. 12, 2017. 

The co-defendants are currently awaiting sentencing, which is scheduled for June 9. 

In the hearing, Mayfield’s defense attorney, Veronice A. Holt explained to DC Superior Court Judge Maribeth Raffinan that Mayfield had told her he needed to tell her something just moments before the verdict was delivered. Holt said she was not made aware of the information about the potential juror misconduct until after the verdict was read. 

Moses’ defense attorney, Steven R. Kiersh also added that he was informed of the potential juror misconduct after the verdict was delivered. 

He explained to the court that a witness said they went to high school with both Moses and the juror. Additionally, a second witness came forward, after sitting in the audience of the trial, and said they went to the same high school as Moses and the juror.

Judge Raffinan questioned both the prosecution and defense regarding how exactly this information came out. Kiersh said he found out through a “secondary source” and has had no direct contact with the witnesses. 

Both the defense and prosecution have multiple unanswered questions regarding the validity of these claims. 

The juror in question was present in the courthouse, however, Mayfield’s defense attorney and the prosecution requested to wait until the evidentiary hearing to examine the witness in order to gain a better foundation of the facts. 

Kiersh opposed both Holt and the prosecution, stating that it was necessary to ask the preliminary questions to get a baseline understanding for their next hearing. 

Judge Raffinan agreed with the prosecution and Holt and scheduled two evidentiary hearings to examine the two witnesses and the juror in question. 

The first evidentiary hearing is scheduled for April 7 for the defense to examine the witnesses. The following evidentiary hearing is scheduled for April 24 to examine the juror.