The fate of a high-profile criminal trial before Criminal Court ‘A’ Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie remains uncertain after prosecutors moved to dismiss the jury, alleging misconduct-claims the defense has strongly rejected as baseless and harmful to the integrity of the court.
The prosecution’s motion centers on an incident that occurred on December 22, when a juror requested that the court replay a video recorded on November 10, 2024.
After the footage was shown in open court, the juror asked prosecution witness Reafel Wilson to identify the defendant, Etheridge, in the video.
Upon hearing the identification, the juror remarked that the individual in the footage appeared to be a Chinese man and questioned whether the person shown and the defendant were the same individual.
Prosecutors argue that this exchange, along with other questions posed during Wilson’s testimony, raises serious concerns that jurors may have been consulting with one another, potentially compromising the fairness of the trial.
Defense attorneys forcefully disputed those claims during arguments on Monday, December 29, 2025, urging the court to deny and dismiss the motion. They maintained that the prosecution failed to present any concrete evidence of juror misconduct or point to any action that violated the law or the court’s instructions.
According to the defense, jurors are expressly permitted to ask questions for clarification, and such engagement reflects attentiveness rather than impropriety.
The defense counsel characterized the prosecution’s allegations as “false, misleading, and unsupported by evidence,” arguing that mere dissatisfaction with juror inquiries does not meet the legal threshold for the extraordinary step of disbanding a jury.
They defense further described the motion as an unwarranted attack on the integrity of the jury panel and, indirectly, on the authority of the court that empaneled and instructed the jurors.
The defense also emphasized that there is no evidence any juror was influenced, intimidated, or improperly interfered with during the proceedings.
Addressing the specific juror cited by the prosecution, defense lawyers argued that the questions raised were neither illegal nor prejudicial and fell squarely within a juror’s duty to evaluate the evidence and seek clarity in the pursuit of justice.
The defense also warned that what they called an attempt to politicize juror inquiry is unprecedented and runs counter to the principles of a fair trial, cautioning that such actions could erode public confidence in the judicial process.
Judge Willie has not yet ruled on the motion. A decision is expected on Friday, January 2, 2026, and will determine whether the trial proceeds with the current jury or whether the panel will be disbanded, potentially derailing the case.
