Jurors Say They Regret Acquitting Man Who Fled County With More Charges Pending
As West Palm Beach spousal abuse criminal defense attorneys, we thought a recent news report was a good illustration of some of the protections and pitfalls of the jury system. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported May 9 that jurors in the trial of a former Davie police officer regret acquitting him of assault on his pregnant wife. As the jury in that trial was finding him not guilty, Vally Getejanc was fleeing the country, first to Rome and then likely to relatives in his native Serbia or in Switzerland. He may have been fleeing his second trial, which was another assault case involving the same woman, who has since given birth to a son and divorced Getejanc. Jurors told the newspaper that if they had known about the second charge and that Getejanc would flee the country, they would have changed their decision.
In the first trial, Getejanc was accused of holding his service weapon to his pregnant wife’s head and threatening to kill her. Juror John Morgan said the jury thought Getejanc was guilty, but felt it didn’t have the evidence to vote for a guilty verdict. That was before Morgan and other jurors found out about the second charge, in which Getejanc was accused of pushing his wife onto the ground while she was five months pregnant. They also regretted not knowing that Getejanc’s former girlfriend sought a restraining order against him in 2008, although that request was not granted. Morgan and another juror, who asked not to be named, said they felt this information was necessary to help them make their decision. It’s not clear whether prosecutors knew Getejanc had fled the country at the time of the trial, but Morgan said knowing that would have influenced his decision as well.
Our Fort Lauderdale spousal abuse criminal defense lawyers understand that jurors are frustrated, particularly since the article suggests Getejanc will not be sought in Europe. But we’re glad the system worked as intended in this case, because there are good reasons not to share this kind of extra information with a jury. In criminal trials, prosecutors usually may not tell jurors about other charges against the accused, or other background information not relevant to the charges. The goal is to keep from prejudicing a jury, allowing them to make decisions solely about whether this particular charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This helps preserve the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. It also limits prosecutors’ ability to bring up information about irrelevant or very old past convictions, or introduce personal information intended only to make the accused unpopular.
Continue reading "Jurors Say They Regret Acquitting Man Who Fled County With More Charges Pending" »


