A homicide trial in Allegheny County collapsed on Wednesday after a judge’s tipstaff smelled marijuana in the jury room during a lunch break, and every juror questioned about it denied any knowledge of drug use. The mistrial halted proceedings against Safon Gump, who is charged with fatally shooting 38-year-old Gregory Prince in Homewood, and now pushes the case toward a new trial date in March.
According to WTAE, opening statements in the trial began around 11:30 a.m. Tuesday. Prosecutors had presented two witnesses by the time the lunch break started around 1:15 p.m. Jurors were sent back to their fifth-floor room to await clearance to leave for lunch. It was during that window, officials said, that a juror used marijuana in the jury room. When Common Pleas Judge Edward J. Borkowski’s tipstaff arrived to release the jury, the smell of marijuana was detected in the room, according to the station’s report.
Borkowski called the attorneys into chambers, and each of the 12 jurors and two alternates was called back individually to be questioned, per the same account. Every juror denied using marijuana, with one juror reportedly telling the judge flatly, “It wasn’t me.” As reported by TribLIVE, Judge Borkowski appointed independent defense attorney Justin Okun to advise the jurors and protect their Fifth Amendment rights during the individual questioning, since the inquiry touched on whether any juror had ingested substances or taken medications that could affect their service.
Defense Argues an Untruthful Juror Tainted the Case
Defense attorney Owen Seman requested the mistrial, telling the court he could not proceed with a homicide trial while someone in the jury room was not being truthful, the article notes. Both sides agreed on one point going in: legal, prescribed marijuana use would not by itself disqualify a juror, and Seman said as much in agreeing with prosecutors on that narrow issue. TribLIVE reports that under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 605(B), a trial court may declare a mistrial on a defendant’s motion when a prejudicial event occurs, or on its own authority under what the rule calls manifest necessity…