Monday June 3, 2024
By Joey Peters and Katrina Pross
A federal prosecutor says a woman tried to bribe a juror, and promised another bag of cash if the juror chose to acquit defendants at trial.
U.S. Assistant Attorney Joe Thompson (left) gives closing arguments in the Feeding Our Future trial on May 31, 2024. Credit: Cedric Hohnstadt
Federal prosecutors are alleging that a juror in the Feeding Our Future trial was bribed Sunday with a bag containing $120,000 in cash in exchange for an acquittal.
The jury tampering allegations were disclosed Monday morning outside of the presence of jurors. Closing arguments, which began last Friday, are expected to wrap up Monday before jurors begin deliberations.
U.S. Assistant Attorney Joe Thompson told U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel that a woman visited the house of a juror Sunday night and left a bag of cash with rolls of dollar bills. Thompson identified the woman as Somali; the seven defendants being jointly tried in one trial are East African.
“This is outrageous behavior. This is the stuff that happens in mob movies,” he said. “It really strikes at the heart of this case.”
Thompson said the juror was not home at the time, but that her father-in-law was present when the woman arrived.
“She said, ‘This is for Juror 52,’” Thompson told Brasel. “‘Tell her there will be another bag for her if she votes to acquit.’”
The juror called police after she arrived home and learned what had happened, Thompson said. The bag of cash is now in the FBI’s custody, Thompson said.
Thompson did not say whether the alleged bribe applied to all of the defendants or specific defendants.
The defendants are being tried on a total of 41 criminal charges, including wire fraud, bribery and money laundering. They are accused of stealing a total of $41 million from a federal program designated to feed underserved children. The trial is part of a larger case with 70 defendants charged with stealing a total of $250 million from the Child Nutrition Program.
Defense attorneys also told Brasel they were troubled by the allegations.
The juror in question is a 23-year-old woman who lives in the north metro. She appeared to be the only person of color on the jury. She was not in court Monday morning.
Brasel said she excused the juror. Brasel interviewed the remaining jurors one-by-one in front of the defendants about whether there has been other unauthorized contact with anyone, “including the media.” The jurors said they have not been contacted by anyone.
She added that she will move to sequester the jury once deliberations begin, adding that lunch will be brought in for them today.
“I want to make sure our jurors feel safe and are able to determine in an unbiased manner going forward,” Brasel said.
She added that sequestering the jury is the most burdensome move a court can make, but that she felt she had no other choice to ensure a fair trial.
At the request of defense attorneys, Brasel said she would also frequently remind jurors not to view media reports about the trial and that she would instruct them to put their phones on emergency mode to avoid seeing breaking news about the case.
Thompson moved for detaining all seven defendants for the rest of the trial. The judge had not issued a decision on the matter as of Monday afternoon. The defendants were not held in custody after they were indicted in the case.
Brasel also ordered the U.S. Marshals to provide added security in court, and asked that they collect but not inspect all of the defendants’ cell phones. Shortly before a lunch break, Brasel told the defendants that they could not leave the courthouse building for the rest of the day.
Prosecutors expressed their intention to file a search warrant of the defendants’ phones; Brasel said another judge would have to handle that issue.
Law profs say allegations are rare
Joe Daly, a Mitchell Hamline School of Law professor emeritus, said he was “shocked” when he heard about the allegations, and that they raise serious questions.
“When somebody tries to throw a wrench into the whole system, it’s concerning,” he said.
Daly said he has never heard of jury tampering during a trial, except in movies.
“Jury tampering goes to the heart of the idea of due process of law, fundamental fairness, the sense of what justice really is in our society,” Daly said. “If you can bribe a jury, what’s the use of having jury trials?”
If other jurors hear about the alleged bribe, it could cast a negative light on all of the defendants, Daly said, adding that Brasel will likely be careful not to reveal too much information about what happened in juror 52’s case.
Daly said he doesn’t think Brasel will declare a mistrial, especially since the trial is near its end. But if the defendants are convicted, he said, the defense could use the jury tampering as a basis for an appeal by arguing that a fair trial was impossible because of the news.
However, David Schultz, a professor who teaches state constitutional law at the University of Minnesota Law School and political science at Hamline University, said he thinks a mistrial is likely.
“How do you guarantee, even with good vetting, that the other jurors are being truthful and haven’t been approached?” he said.
Schultz said that this will also likely impact subsequent trials for other defendants in the case who are awaiting their own trials. The federal government will likely not want to proceed with more trials until the person who allegedly tried to bribe the juror is identified, he said.
“I think it clearly has a cascading effect,” Schultz said. “It’s almost like, now they’ve got a whole new criminal problem here.”
Daly and Schultz agreed that it’s troubling that someone was able to track down a juror when their name isn’t public.
“How did they do that? Is there a flaw in our system?” Daly said.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.