Attorneys argued in Clark County Superior Court on Wednesday over whether Christopher Warren, who was found guilty of child rape, should get a new trial due to possible juror misconduct. Twelve jurors reached their unanimous verdict on Oct. 31. But Craig Bowen, who was Juror No. 6, said under oath last month that he had accidentally read a few words from a Columbian article about Warren, which influenced his vote.
Warren’s attorney, Louis Byrd Jr., filed a motion for a new trial and alleged that what Bowen read prejudiced him.
On Nov. 1, Bowen told the court and The Columbian that his fellow jurors may have had outside knowledge about the case before reaching a verdict. According to court transcripts, Bowen later admitted to glancing at a newspaper article, where he believed he read that Warren was accused of molesting another victim. The information didn’t make sense to him, so he later sought clarification on The Columbian’s website and saw a headline indicating that Warren was a police officer, but — seeing his mistake in seeking a media report — he didn’t read any further. “He thought that he could put it out of his mind, but, as he tells us, he couldn’t,” Byrd said.
Information about previous allegations against Warren was not admissable at the weeklong trial because of concerns it would prejudice the jury.
During an interview last month, presiding juror John Bailey said that he had no knowledge of jury misconduct during the trial. He said that some jurors surmised that Warren was a police officer through media reports and testimony given during trial indicating he wore a uniform to work. Bailey said the information did not influence his decision. According to court documents, jurors also had wondered whether Warren was related to his other attorney, Ernest Warren. Ernest Warren said he is Christopher Warren’s first cousin, once removed.
Court transcripts indicate that Bowen did not talk with jurors about what he had seen in the newspaper regarding previous molestation allegations. He said, however, the information he saw unintentionally influenced his determination as a juror. Describing himself as persuasive, he explained that he may have unwittingly influenced his fellow jurors.
Senior Deputy Prosecutor Camara Banfield said that if the information Bowen learned was kept to himself and not brought into jury deliberations, then it wouldn’t impact the verdict. She also questioned Bowen’s credibility and motive in reporting what happened to the court.
“He gave more than one account of what happened,” she said. After the trial, Bowen said he read everything he could find online about Warren and “just lost my mind,” according to court documents. He decided Warren wasn’t guilty and wanted to do something to remedy it, Banfield said.
Judge Barbara Johnson said she would consider the arguments and review case law. Warren is next scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday for a review of the presentence investigation report.
