2019 IL App (5th) 160027
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- David W. Ryder was indicted for two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault (victim under 13) and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse based on allegations by a girl who had stayed overnight at his home.
- The State presented videotaped, Mirandized interviews in which Ryder made partial admissions (finger penetration; placing his penis on the victim’s hand; admitting mouth/spit conduct but denying full penile penetration). The interviews included Captain Weymouth, who later was revealed to be the juror Pensoneau’s brother.
- During voir dire the trial judge asked about relatives in law enforcement; juror Pensoneau disclosed her brother worked in the sheriff’s department but stated she could be fair. Defense counsel did not challenge her for cause or use a peremptory to remove her.
- The jury viewed portions of the videotaped interview during deliberations in the presence of a courtroom clerk and bailiff after requesting to re-watch the recording; defense counsel raised no contemporaneous objection.
- Ryder was convicted on all counts, lost a posttrial motion for new trial, and received consecutive prison terms; he appealed raising (1) juror bias (Pensoneau), (2) ineffective assistance for failing to challenge that juror or seek extra peremptories, and (3) plain error from allowing jurors to view video in the presence of nonjurors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Ryder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial judge sua sponte should have removed juror related to interviewing officer | No duty to sua sponte remove; defendant waived by failing to challenge | Pensoneau, as sister of officer on the video, was impliedly biased and disqualified; plain error review | Court: No duty to sua sponte remove juror; implied-bias claim can be waived; no reversible error. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge juror or request extra peremptory | Counsel’s voir dire decisions are strategic; defendant must show prejudice | Counsel’s failure to strike juror or seek additional peremptory was deficient and prejudiced the trial | Court: Even assuming deficiency, defendant cannot show reasonable probability of different outcome given strong evidence; claim fails. |
| Allowing jurors to view video during deliberations in presence of clerk/bailiff | Viewing in presence of neutral court staff allowed; no objection preserved | Presence of nonjurors during viewing risked undue influence; plain error warrants reversal | Court: No clear error; neutral nonjurors differ from party representatives; procedure was announced and not objected to; no plain error. |
| Plain-error review availability | State forfeited certain procedural objections; but no reversible error exists | Seeks plain-error review because no contemporaneous objection was made at trial | Court: Considered merits; plain-error standard not met because evidence not closely balanced and no structural error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Metcalfe, 202 Ill.2d 544 (Ill. 2002) (trial court has discretion but no duty to sua sponte excuse juror for cause)
- United States v. Brazelton, 557 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2009) (implied-bias claims may be waived by failure to challenge juror)
- People v. Hillier, 237 Ill.2d 539 (Ill. 2010) (plain-error review is narrow and requires showing of clear or obvious error)
- People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 (Ill. 2014) (describes two-prong plain-error framework: closely balanced evidence or error affecting trial fairness)