50 A.3d 1050
D.C.2012Background
- Johnson was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree premeditated murder while armed, second-degree burglary while armed, first-degree felony murder while armed, carrying a pistol without a license, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.
- After closing arguments and before deliberations, the court replaced regular Juror 223 with Alternate Juror 619 over defense objection, citing Rule 24(c) discretion.
- Juror 223 had asked many questions about credibility and testified concerns, prompting defense concern but no finding of incapacity.
- The trial judge declined to voir dire the replaced juror despite defense requests to do so, and did not discharge the other alternates.
- The appellate court held the replacement was erroneous under Rule 24(c), not harmless, reversed Johnson’s convictions, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether replacing Juror 223 without a finding of inability or disqualification violated Rule 24(c). | Johnson | Johnson | Yes; error under Rule 24(c) |
| Whether the error was harmless or reversible under Hinton and related standards. | Johnson | Johnson/State | Reversed; not harmless; new trial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinton v. United States, 979 A.2d 663 (D.C.2009) (abuse of juror replacement requires harmlessness analysis when not overwhelming evidence)
- Hobbs v. United States, 18 A.3d 796 (D.C.2011) (limits on discretionary juror replacement; need clear legal standard)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (Supreme Court 1946) (harmless-error standard for structural trial errors)