E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 5:05 p.m. ET: A Florida judge denied defense requests Monday to toss out the manslaughter conviction of John Goodman, the millionaire founder of the International Polo Club, because a juror later said he doubted Goodman's guilt. A separate ruling awaits on a second juror's admission that he had conducted an at-home drinking experiment during the trial.
|
Kerry Sanders and Dan Shepherd of NBC News and NBC station WPTV of West Palm Beach, Fla., contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook. |
Goodman was convicted in March of DUI manslaughter for driving his Bentley through a stop sign while intoxicated in February 2010 in Wellington, Fla. He smashed into a car driven by 23-year-old Scott Wilson, flipping the car into a canal, where Wilson drowned.
The case drew national attention after Goodman adopted his 42-year-old girlfriend to protect his fortune.
Full coverage of the John Goodman trial
Goodman's attorneys, led by Roy Black — best known for successfully defending William Kennedy Smith against rape charges — have filed several motions seeking a new trial for Goodman or even to throw our his conviction. Judge Jeffrey Colbath ruled Monday on one of them, declaring that juror Michael St. John wasn't "credible" when he said he had felt pressured to convict Goodman before deliberations began and believed that Goodman was actually not guilty.
There was no word on when or whether Colbath would rule on a separate challenge to the conviction, which Black filed last week after a second juror, Dennis DeMartin, self-published a 32-page book titled "Believing In The Truth," in which he writes that he drank three vodka tonics the night before deliberations to recreate Goodman's level of intoxication.
"I wasn't drunk the next morning when I made my decision. I'll tell you that, I was fine," DeMartin said.
That constitutes jury misconduct, Black argued in court documents, accusing DeMartin of having admitted that "he violated his oath as a juror and direct instructions from the court to not engage in extrajudicial experiments and investigations."
"What began as a snowball has now become an avalanche," Black wrote, referring to the jury misconduct allegations.
Legal experts said Black has a good case.
"If we now have a juror doing exactly what was alleged during the trial, that crosses the line," said Michael Salnick, a criminal defense attorney in West Palm Beach, Fla. "It's outrageous. It shocks the conscience and goes against everything the jury system stands for."
Gregg Lerman, another West Palm Beach criminal defense attorney, voiced similar views.
"Jurors are not supposed to go home and conduct any experiments," he said. "You're suppose to base your decision on evidence you hear at the trial, not outside influences."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- N.C. marriage vote: Bill Clinton vs Billy Graham
- 9/11 attorney wears hijab at hearing, urges modest dress
- How brothers' 'pill mill' operation fueled painkiller abuse
- Secret Service prostitute: Agents were 'stupid brutes'
- Police: No suspects in slaying at Kentucky Derby track
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
My God! He sure lost a LOT of weight since his roseanne days on TV!!.
Poor Goodman, if he just would have been a congressman and killed a motorcyclist instead he would have walked.
One set of laws for the wealthy and powerful and another set of laws for everyone else, just like Europe in the 18th Century.
Lawyers want jurors to be ignorant so they can fool them with their lies and courtroom posturing. An intelligent juror who does independent research might just discover how much BS the lawyers are feeding him. We can't have that. The truth might just come out. Justice might actually be served.
Another 1% Republican about to buy his way out of having to pay for his crimes, just like wall street, the banks and the rest of their ilk.
But then when you are one of the Aristocrats and the Republican party has your back what is the big deal about killing one insignificant peasant?
If the Republican party ever gets control of this country all of our futures and our way of life will be run over by these scum.
The courts are not really controled by the parties. And as far as Aristrocrats, how about Kennedy and his murder of an innocent girl at Chappoquitic? He never was even charged. Any of the rest of us would have been.
Goodman consumed alcohol, got in to a motor vehicle, got into an accident after running a stop sign, killed a young human being and now they want to throw out the conviction over a technicality?
He should go to jail and serve his time like everyone else. Being rich and famous does not give you special privilages.
If his conviction is thrown out based on this garbage then the justice system in Florida is for the rich and dumps on the poor.
Not any different than getting 2 years for murder in Baltimore, maybe not even as bad.
Here, in the 'great' state of Pennsylvania, corruption runs rampant as well. A friend of mine got nabbed for a DUI. The circumstances in how exactly he was caught seemed a bit flimsy to me, but he was DUI none-the-less. He approaches a rather high profile defense attorney from Montgomery County to have him represent him. The guy tells him for $1000 he'll walk him through the process, make sure he gets ARD, minimum sentence, etc etc. For $5000...he walks. He payed the 5k and charges were dropped...