March 22, 2024: The February 1, 2024, guilty verdict in the Michael Baltimore aggravated assault case was vacated and charges related to that case were dismissed this week.  During the course of the trial there was contact between a juror and a Commonwealth witness.  This contact went unreported to the court. The trial, which took place January 31^st through February 1^st, 2024, included testimony from an expert in domestic violence.  That expert testified on January 31st and explained to the jury the dynamics of domestic violence to assist the jury to have a better understanding domestic violence and how it affects victims.  After the trial was recessed for the day, the Commonwealth’s expert went out to dinner at a local restaurant.  While dining she was approached by a woman who thanked the witness for her testimony.  The witness inquired of the woman whether she had been watching the trial.  It was at this point the woman identified herself as a juror.  The witness quickly responded that since the woman was a juror it was inappropriate for them to be speaking.  The witness then proceeded to call the assistant district attorney in the case and advise her of the conversation with the juror.  The contact between the witness and juror was not reported to the court. On February 1, 2024, after the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Baltimore guilty of aggravated assault, simple assault, and flight to avoid apprehension, but not guilty of strangulation.

The contact between the witness and the juror, although it did not involve any discussion of the facts of the case, should have been brought to the attention of the court.  On February 2, 2024, the day after the jury’s guilty verdict, the assistant district attorney, concerned that a mistake was made by not notifying the court, notified District Attorney Seán McCormack of the situation.  District Attorney McCormack immediately notified defense counsel and the court of the juror contact with the witness. 

The defendant was denied the opportunity to have another juror seated in place of the juror that approached the witness, and as such he was denied a fair trial.  When there is a reckless disregard on the part of the prosecutor for the substantial risk that the defendant would not receive a fair trial, as there was in this case, the current caselaw in Pennsylvania indicates that double jeopardy bars a retrial.  After reviewing the facts of the juror contact with the witness and the timeline of when such contact was reported to the court, the district attorney’s office conceded that in the interests of justice, the guilty verdict must be vacated, and the charges dismissed with prejudice. 

District Attorney McCormack commented, “The integrity of our judicial system is of paramount importance, and when a prosecutor makes a wrong decision in trial that imperils the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial, as prosecutors we must do what is right to correct that mistake.  In this case the prosecutor’s mistaken belief that the juror contact did not need to be reported to the court, although said mistake was unintentional and not designed to prejudice the defendant, the result of the mistake did result in the defendant being prejudiced.  We could not in good conscious argue otherwise to the court and therefore we agreed with defense counsel that the verdict should be vacated, and charges dismissed.” 

McCormack added, “I informed the victim of this situation.  She is understandably upset by this result.  I know it is of no comfort to her, but we very much respect her courage to come forward and testify under very trying circumstances.”