538 S.W.3d 366
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Bernard Jackson was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of first-degree robbery, forcible rape, and sodomy based on cold‑case DNA; convictions and sentences (consecutive life terms) were previously affirmed in State v. Jackson.
- After conviction, Jackson filed a Rule 29.15 post‑conviction motion alleging juror misconduct: Juror #8 kept a private notebook during trial and later posted a blog about her jury experience after being discharged.
- Stipulated evidence at the post‑conviction hearing showed the juror wrote notes in her hotel room after court, never removed the notebook from the hotel until after trial, did not show notes to fellow jurors, was not contacted or influenced by outside information, and posted her blog only after discharge.
- Jackson argued the juror violated the court’s jury instructions (MAI‑CR 302.01 / MAI‑CR 300.04) prohibiting blogging/unauthorized communications and limiting note‑taking, and that the conduct deprived him of due process (structural error).
- The circuit court denied relief; the appellate court affirmed, holding (1) the juror’s private note‑taking and later blogging did not violate the instruction as written, and (2) Jackson failed to prove juror misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror misconduct claim is cognizable in Rule 29.15 when blog discovered after trial | Jackson: Exceptional circumstances exist because blog was not discovered until after trial, so claim may be raised post‑conviction | State: Juror misconduct is a trial error generally outside 29.15; blog was posted immediately after trial and thus discoverable | Court: Claim was cognizable—exception applies where misconduct discovered only after trial; but Jackson’s motion lacked timing detail though court still reached the merits |
| Whether juror violated the instruction proscribing communications (blogging) during trial by keeping private notes to publish later | Jackson: Private note‑taking with intent to post later violated the instruction’s ban on blogging/communication and undermines verdict | State: Instruction prohibits communication with others during trial; private, unpublished journaling in hotel did not communicate or influence trial | Court: Instruction prohibits communication during trial; private journal kept and posted only after discharge did not violate the communication ban |
| Whether juror violated the note‑taking limitation (use only court notebooks, not remove notes) | Jackson: Juror’s personal notebook violated the instruction’s restriction on notes and removal from courtroom | State: Instruction limits courtroom note‑taking and removal of court notebooks; it does not ban private journals kept outside courtroom | Court: Instruction concerns notes taken in courtroom on court‑provided notebooks; private after‑hours journal in hotel room is not proscribed |
| Whether any violation constituted constitutional (structural) error requiring reversal | Jackson: High‑profile coverage and blog content undermine confidence in verdict; structural error presumed | State: No misconduct shown; no structural error | Court: No misconduct proven by preponderance; no structural error; post‑conviction denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuary v. State, 241 S.W.3d 446 (Mo. App. 2007) (exception allowing post‑conviction review where juror misconduct facts discovered only after trial)
- Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard for reviewing Rule 29.15 factual findings)
- State v. Jackson, 410 S.W.3d 204 (Mo. App. 2013) (prior opinion affirming Jackson's convictions; factual background source)
- Cummings v. State, 514 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. App. 2017) (trial‑error burden shifting in new‑trial context: defendant must show misconduct occurred)
- Keeny v. State, 461 S.W.2d 731 (Mo. 1971) (post‑conviction relief not for retrying trial errors)
- Coon v. State, 504 S.W.3d 888 (Mo. App. 2016) (movant must plead all facts necessary to show entitlement to post‑conviction relief)
- Williams v. State, 497 S.W.3d 395 (Mo. App. 2016) (requirements for alleging newly discovered evidence or perjured testimony in post‑conviction pleadings)
- Hoskins v. State, 329 S.W.3d 695 (Mo. banc 2010) (pleading rules bar raising new claims on appeal that were not in the motion)