2021 Ohio 2673
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Gregory McKnight was convicted in 2002 of multiple homicides and sentenced to death; the jury returned its verdict on October 14, 2002.
- Crim.R. 33(B) requires a new-trial motion based on jury misconduct to be filed within 14 days of the verdict unless the defendant was "unavoidably prevented" from timely filing.
- In 2017–2019 McKnight obtained juror affidavits alleging racist remarks during deliberations and, on April 1, 2019, moved for leave to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(2) new-trial motion based on juror racial animus.
- The state relied on a December 2003 affidavit from McKnight’s attorney showing interviews of two jurors and on the trial transcript (the jury was released and told they could discuss the case) to argue McKnight could have discovered misconduct earlier.
- The trial court denied leave without a hearing, focusing on whether Pena‑Rodriguez applied and on delay; the appellate majority reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding the trial court applied the wrong legal analysis; a separate judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKnight was "unavoidably prevented" from filing a Crim.R.33(B) motion within 14 days after the Oct. 14, 2002 verdict | McKnight: had no knowledge of juror racial misconduct and could not have learned it within 14 days; prior courts denied juror inquiry and Pena‑Rodriguez (2017) made juror evidence usable | State: counsel was free to interview jurors after discharge (record shows the jury was released) and counsel interviewed jurors in Dec. 2003, so McKnight was not unavoidably prevented | Appellate court: trial court erred by not examining what efforts, if any, were made during the 14‑day window; remanded for evidentiary hearing on diligence/unavoidable prevention |
| Whether Evid.R. 606(B) barred discovery/interviews of jurors and thus made McKnight’s delay unavoidable | McKnight: Evid.R. 606(B) and pre‑Pena law prevented obtaining admissible juror affidavits, so he could not develop the requisite evidence until Pena‑Rodriguez | State: Evid.R. 606(B) limits admissibility but does not bar informal interviews; rule does not excuse lack of diligence in investigating misconduct | Appellate court: rejected the claim that Evid.R. 606(B) prevented investigation; interview attempts can and should be made even if admissibility is uncertain |
| Whether Pena‑Rodriguez’s (2017) change in law is the relevant trigger for filing or retroactive application to the leave inquiry | McKnight: Pena opened the door to using juror statements about racial animus, so he could not have timely obtained usable evidence before 2017 | State: Pena is irrelevant to the threshold question whether McKnight was unavoidably prevented from discovering misconduct within 14 days | Appellate court: Pena‑Rodriguez is irrelevant to the initial leave inquiry (which is governed by Crim.R.33 and diligence cases); trial court erred by focusing on Pena |
| Whether McKnight filed his motion for leave within a reasonable time after discovering the juror misconduct | McKnight: acted promptly once juror statements became available; delays are explained by prior litigation and counsel limitations | State: McKnight delayed unreasonably and initially pursued federal avenues instead of state court; 2003 interviews show earlier discovery possible | Appellate court: trial court applied incorrect analysis on reasonableness of delay; remand required to assess when misconduct was discovered and whether subsequent delay was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Pena‑Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (U.S. Supreme Court created a constitutional exception to the no‑impeachment rule for juror statements exhibiting overt racial bias)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (explains Crim.R.33(B) leave standard and the need to assess counsel’s diligence in investigating juror misconduct)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (1984) (defines "unavoidably prevented" as lack of knowledge and inability to learn within the filing period through reasonable diligence)
- State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108 (2000) (explains the aliunde rule and that juror testimony to impeach a verdict generally requires extraneous independent evidence)
- State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 (2019) (discusses juror‑impeachment principles in the post‑Pena context)