In a highly unusual move, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office is seeking a new trial in the case of Jhacorey Wyatt, who was convicted of a 2021 Tenderloin shooting and could face up to 25 years in prision.
In a motion heard Wednesday morning, Public Defender Mano Raju argued that four of the jurors in the case voted for the guilty verdict only under duress, and that the instructions the judge offered were confusing and misleading.
The filings shed some fascinating light on how jury deliberations can happen in a long, difficult case, and what that says about the unfairness of the criminal justice system.
Wyatt was in the Tenderloin on the day of the shooting, looking for his brother, who had serious substance issues, with a goal of bringing him home, Raju told me.
Wyatt testified that he was carrying a gun because he was going into an area known for violence and thought he might need it for self-defense.
At the time he opened fire, he said, two people suspected of being armed drug dealers approached him and he found them threatening. He fired at one, injuring but not killing him, and a stray bullet killed a bystander.
The question the jury faced: Was Wyatt using legally justified force for self-defense in the face of a threat of death or serious injury—and if that’s the case, then he couldn’t be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
If the killing was an accident, at maximum the crime was involuntary manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of four years (and he’s already been locked up for that long).
The trial took three months, and the jury deliberated two weeks before finding him guilty of manslaughter and assault with a firearm.
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins heralded the verdict, saying:
The jury’s verdict holds Mr. Wyatt accountable for his extremely dangerous and reckless behavior… With justice done, my office will continue to fight on to protect the safety of the public and do everything we can to reduce gun violence in our city.
But Raju has obtained sworn declarations from four of the jurors saying that they did not believe Wyatt was guilty, but felt pressure to avoid either further deliberations or a hung jury.
Several jurors also said that the instructions the judge issued on the meaning of “self defense” were confusing—and Raju argues that the instructions we inadequate as a matter of law.
It’s rare for the jurors in any case, including a criminal case, to say afterward that they not only made a mistake but were unduly influenced by outside factors.
But in court filings, one juror notes:
I realize that my vote all along was Not Guilty on all assaultive charges because Mr. Wyatt acted in legitimate self defense.
The foreperson of the jury said:
I believe, based on the evidence in the case, that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof. The prosecution did not prove that Jhacorey Wyatt did not act in self defense.
But the jurors were exhausted, the declarations state, and while several members were not convinced by the evidence, “at least one juror expressed that they had upcoming vacation plans and other jurors discussed obligations outside of court.”
Another juror declared:
At some point in the deliberations it became clear that many jurors were becoming exhausted … I could see that jurors just wanted to wrap up the case and at least one juror had their head down on the table. … It became apparent that many … simply wanted to come to a verdict, any verdict.
Toward the end of the deliberations, the foreperson noted that the jury instructions left open another alternative—involuntary manslaughter:
But very few jurors wanted to talk about it …. multiple jurors expressed extreme concern about obligations outside of court and financial hardship if deliberations continued indefinitely … I realized that the only way we could bring these deliberations to a close was to go with the plurality, so I ultimately cast a vote of guilty on manslaughter and assault even though the prosecution did not prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt because I thought that was something I was supposed to do.
The trial lasted longer than projected, which happens. Jurors are paid a pittance for their time. In this case, several original jurors had to leave, and alternates were seated.
So the life of a person accused of a crime could have come down to how impatient the remaining jurors were—and that’s not how a jury trial is supposed to work.
Part of the issue, Raju argues, was the jury instructions, the oral and written legal directions that the judge gives to a jury at the end of a case. This gets a little complicated, but the bottom line is the definition of when self-defense is legally protected.
Raju argues that under state law, if a person has reasonable grounds to believe that their live could be in danger, they can use force in their own defense—that is, the appearance of danger makes it legal, even if in the end there was no danger.
(The cops use that interpretation all the time in shooting incidents, arguing that a “reasonable” belief that a threat exists is grounds to use lethal force.)
But Judge Michael McNaughton didn’t include in the jury instructions language saying that the appearance of danger can justify self-defense.
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins initially opposed the motion for a new trial largely on the grounds that the affidavits from the jurors weren’t properly sworn under penalty of perjury. Raju fixed that pretty quickly—but the Evidence Code seems hardly the point here: If four of the 12 jurors say they were influenced by reasons outside of actual guilt or innocence, why is the district attorney opposing a request for a new trial and pushing forward to have Wyatt sentenced to a long prison term?
Raju:
Jhacorey is a bright young man and an excellent father who found himself in a life-threatening situation in the Tenderloin while he was caring for a very sick brother.
It’s exceptional to have multiple jurors, including the foreperson, sign affidavits after a conviction explaining that there has been a grave error. These jurors, who already acquitted on all murder charges, are explaining clearly that they believed Jhacorey acted in lawful self-defense, and that their true analysis is not guilty on all charges. They have signed affidavits declaring that it was instructional confusion, time pressure, and fear that Jhacorey would have to wait three years for a new trial that caused them to vote guilty on lesser offenses.
Anyone accused of a crime in San Francisco should get a fair trial. The district attorney should not be opposing a motion to vacate these convictions and pushing forward to sentence Jhacorey when multiple jurors, including the foreperson, are asserting that he is not guilty. That is not justice.
The judge took the motion under submission.
