Judge Must Void Unjust Verdicts, Court Rules

What happens if a jury says a defendant is guilty but the judge has his doubts?

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana ruled Monday that a judge has an obligation to sit as a “13th juror” if he disagrees with the jury’s verdict.

Guy Daniel Wilson had been found guilty by an Orange County Superior Court jury in connection with a residential burglary in Anaheim on July 19, 1986. His fingerprints had been detected on a piece of glass found on the bed in the victim’s room. The glass had come from the patio window, which had been smashed out in the burglary.

The defense had pointed out that it was impossible to tell which side of the glass the print had come from. Also, there were wide discrepancies in neighbors’ descriptions of the burglar, none of whom could identify Wilson.

The jury found Wilson guilty.

At a court hearing on a motion for a new trial, however, Superior Court Judge David H. Brickner said that if he had been on the jury, he would have had “reasonable doubt about (Wilson’s) guilt.”

“But the jury did not find a reasonable doubt. And my thought is to go with the jury . . . absent some lawful reason why its verdict should be overturned.”

Brickner denied the defense motion for a new trial, saying, “My comprehension of the judge’s role is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.” But if the case had been tried before him without a jury, Brickner said, he would have acquitted Wilson.

Appellate Justice Thomas F. Crosby Jr. wrote in the court’s unanimous opinion, “It is clear from the judge’s statement that he had a reasonable doubt as to (the) defendant’s guilt.” In view of that, Brickner had an obligation to determine the strength of the evidence, Crosby wrote.

The appellate court opinion does not mean Wilson is found not guilty, however. It only means that Brickner must now order a new trial for Wilson on the charges.