Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge denies new-trial motion after defense says juror failed to disclose family tie in Brazwell case
Summary
In 25 CR 00088 in Clinton County, defense counsel argued a juror failed to reveal a close family connection to a prior, similar sexual‑abuse case; the court reviewed voir dire and evidence and denied the motion for a new trial, leaving the conviction in place for now.
A Clinton Circuit judge denied a defense motion for a new trial in Conwell v. Christopher Brazwell (25 CR 00088), after defense counsel said juror number 173 failed to disclose that she helps raise a great‑niece who was the victim of a prior sex‑abuse case.
Defense counsel told the court that the juror had marked “yes” to a general question on the juror qualification form about whether a family member had been a defendant, witness or complainant, but had not provided details that would have revealed the child‑victim connection. Counsel said the defense learned after the March 4 jury trial that the juror had that personal involvement and argued the omission deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
The judge reviewed the record of voir dire and follow‑up private questioning, noted the juror had been asked whether anyone had a family member or close associate with the kind of allegation at issue and that the juror did not raise her hand or ask to speak privately. The court also noted family acquaintances between the juror and members of the defendant’s extended family cited by counsel. After considering the arguments, the judge said he would "deny the motion for a new trial at this time" and kept a full record for possible future proceedings.
Defense counsel said the defense had not known about the juror’s connection until after the verdict and relied on case law that treats juror silence during voir dire as limiting defense remedies. Prosecutors and the court emphasized the broad wording of the standard juror‑qualification questions and observed that the juror had been individually examined during voir dire.
The court’s ruling leaves the underlying guilty verdict intact while preserving record arguments the defense can use on appeal or later motion practice. No new evidentiary hearing or retrial date was set during the session.
The court proceedings were held in Clinton County circuit court; the motion and the judge’s written findings will be part of the trial record and any subsequent appellate filings.
