1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s…

Ethics

Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s ‘inner sanctum’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 27, 2025, 10:27 am CDT

An Oklahoma lawyer has been suspended for six months for watching real-time jury deliberations on a monitor in a murder case that he prosecuted.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended former assistant district attorney Isaac Seth Brantley Shields in a March 25 decision.

The Legal Profession Blog published highlights.

Shields violated “the inner sanctum of a jury,” which is “a high breach of trust and a serious interference with the administration of justice,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. “It is common knowledge that observing jury deliberations is unacceptable.”

Shields was accused of watching the deliberations video July 1, 2022, in the trial of Chouteau, Oklahoma, man Robert Kent Kraft, according to prior coverage by KJRH.com. There was no audio, according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Shields was an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma’s District 12, which consists of Craig County, Mayes County and Rogers County. He was the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kraft, who claimed that he fatally stabbed another man in self-defense.

Jurors were deliberating in an adjacent courtroom to give them more space during the COVID-19 pandemic. The room was equipped with three security cameras that remained on during deliberations. Facial expressions and hand gestures were visible on the high-quality video, but it was not possible to read words on paper.

Two hours into the deliberations, an officer allowed Shields into the locked security office where the video played. Shields claimed that he was asked to enter because of a security situation involving the defendant’s family trying to enter the courtroom; security personnel said the security incident happened hours later, but they did not know why Shields was allowed in.

Shields said he did not immediately leave because he was curious about what was taking the jurors so long and because he had nothing else to do, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. He left and returned several times. He later told another assistant district attorney who was the second chair in the trial to come the security room. Shields controlled the cameras to zoom in and zoom out and discussed his observations with security officers and the other prosecutor.

At first, there appeared to be a holdout juror, but Kraft was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. His case is on appeal after a mistrial was granted because of the prosecutors’ jury observations.

A deputy reported his concerns about the prosecutors watching the video. When asked what happened, Shields told his supervisors that he was in the room for “30 minutes. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less,” according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. He also said the video was grainy.

Shields actually observed the jury for more than two hours, according to the state supreme court. Shields “misrepresented and was deceitful regarding the reason he entered the security room, the length of time he watched the jury, and what he observed,” the state supreme court concluded.

Shields “not only observed the jury for over two hours, he failed to disclose that he was doing so to the court, or opposing counsel, even when dealing with jury questions. This is egregious behavior,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields and the other prosecutor self-reported the matter to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

Shields agreed to resign and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which he acknowledged violating a law that bans observing or recording jurors. He specified, however, that he had no intent to break the law.

Shields argued that he received no advantage by observing the jury, and he had watched others—including judges and prosecutors—listen to juries when deliberations got loud.

The state supreme court cited several mitigating factors. They included Shields’ military service, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, his self-reporting of the incident to the Oklahoma Bar Association, and his cooperation in the investigation that followed.

He has been “diligent in completing the terms” of the deferred prosecution agreement and has entered into an agreement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers, a referral service for lawyers, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields’ lawyer, Sheila Naifeh, told the ABA Journal that she and her client have no comment on the suspension.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer convicted in fatal shooting of man…

Criminal Justice

Lawyer convicted in fatal shooting of man who attacked him in law firm parking lot

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 10, 2025, 10:07 am CDT

A Connecticut lawyer was found guilty of first-degree manslaughter Friday for fatally shooting a man who attacked him in the parking lot of his law firm.

Robert L. Fisher Jr., 78, of Connecticut was convicted after jurors deliberated for three hours, report Law360, CT Insider and the Register Citizen.

Connecticut law imposes a “duty to retreat” before using force that can cause death or serious injury, according to the Register Citizen and a previous Connecticut Insider story. The duty applies only when a person can safely retreat and is outside the home or the office.

The state does not have a stand-your-ground law, which allows the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat, even outside the home or the workplace, when a person reasonably thinks that it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.

The June 2021 incident began, Fisher had testified, when Matthew Bromley pulled him from his car and began punching him, claiming that the lawyer had “ruined my life,” according to CT Insider. Then Bromley spit in his face, according to Fisher’s testimony, described by CT Insider.

“I was in fear,” Fisher said. “He was so impossibly angry his face was contorted with rage. I have never seen anything like it. I undid my seat belt and kicked him, so he would be farther away. … I got out of the car to face him. … He charged me in the chest. He was shouting. ‘I am going to kill you.’”

Fisher, who was 74 years old at the time of the incident, said he fired his gun when Bromley charged toward him and reached for his arm. Prosecutors said Fisher could have retreated to his car and locked the door, rather than shoot Bromley.

Prosecutors had cited eyewitness accounts that Fisher stepped forward from his car’s open door before shooting. The forward step showed that the shooting was in revenge for the attack, rather than self-protection, the prosecution claimed.

In his closing argument, Litchfield County State’s Attorney David Shannon described what he thought that Fisher could have been thinking, according to Law360.

“How dare this little man in his beat-up old Saab, wearing his wife beater tank top and his cargo shorts, assault him?” Shannon said. “How dare he [Bromley] do that? He [Fisher] was going to refuse to be a victim. That’s what happened here.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial…

Criminal Justice

Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial in prosecution for fatally shooting wife, defense lawyer says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 9:09 am CDT

Jurors in Los Angeles were unable to agree on a verdict in the case of a California judge who texted court personnel after fatally shooting his wife, saying he won’t be at work the next day because “I just lost it. I just shot my wife.”

A mistrial was declared Monday after jurors were unable to reach a verdict on a second-degree murder charge against Judge Jeffrey Ferguson of the Orange County Superior Court in California, report Law360, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press.

Eleven out of 12 jurors had voted for conviction. They had deliberated for eight days.

Ferguson’s lawyer had argued that Ferguson accidentally pulled the trigger while trying to place his gun onto the coffee table. He had killed his wife, Sheryl, in August 2023 while watching the AMC TV show Breaking Bad at their home and arguing about finances.

At the time, Ferguson was 72 years old, and he had fumbled the gun because of shooting pain from a shoulder injury, causing the gun to fire, his lawyer argued. Ferguson’s blood alcohol level was about twice the legal limit for drivers when the shooting happened, a prosecution expert said.

An adult son who was in the home had testified that he had stepped outside as his parents argued and heard his mother say words to the effect, “Why don’t you point a real gun at me?” The son said he turned around and saw his father fire the gun that he kept in an ankle holster.

Ferguson had testified that his wife instead said, “Why don’t you put the real gun away from me?”

Ferguson’s lawyer, Cameron Talley, told reporters after the mistrial was declared that neither Ferguson’s children nor his slain wife’s family members wanted him prosecuted, according to Law360.

“At the end of the day, Judge Ferguson’s life remains in ruins: He’s a broken, 74-year-old man who lost his wife and has health problems,” Talley said.

Talley said he hoped that he could reach a resolution to the case in future discussions with prosecutors.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said his office is “absolutely prepared to retry this case,” according to Law360.

Spitzer also said his office would be reviewing Ferguson’s cases because he admitted during trial testimony that he was sometimes under the influence of alcohol on the bench.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer accused of helping client defraud…

Criminal Justice

Lawyer accused of helping client defraud creditors is acquitted a second time

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 19, 2025, 8:52 am CST

A former Freeborn & Peters lawyer in Illinois has been acquitted of wire fraud a second time in a case stemming from his representation of a neighbor, the owner of a Chicago business that eventually filed for bankruptcy.

Federal jurors acquitted lawyer Edward Lee Filer in a retrial after deliberating a little more than one hour, Law360 reports.

Filer’s lawyer, Ronald Safer, told Law360 that the verdict “is a hard-fought testament to the integrity of Mr. Filer, who was unjustly accused in a case that should never have been brought against him.”

Prosecutors had alleged that Filer schemed to defraud creditors of the business, the Barsanti Woodwork Corp., in two ways, according to an appellate ruling in the case and a Jan. 14 pretrial ruling by a federal judge overseeing the retrial.

First, Filer was accused of helping the Barsanti Woodwork Corp.’s owner obtain control of the company’s secured bank debt at a discount through a nominal purchaser. Second, Filer was accused of engaging in transactions that transferred the Barsanti Woodwork Corp.’s assets to a new company secretly controlled by the company’s owner. The Barsanti Woodwork Corp. then filed for bankruptcy.

In Filer’s first trial, jurors convicted Filer of wire fraud but now-deceased U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois granted a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago reversed that first acquittal in December 2022. The appeals court held that prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence to support a wire fraud conviction, even though Filer did not profit, and some of his actions were inconsistent with an intent to defraud.

The 7th Circuit said the case should be reassigned to a new judge on remand.

Before the retrial, U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger of the Northern District of Illinois found that the government violated Filer’s attorney-client privilege when it obtained information about Filer’s confidential communications with the former general counsel at Freeborn & Peters. The government obtained the information while prepping the former general counsel for testimony, according to a Jan. 31 docket entry.

As a sanction, Seeger barred the former general counsel from testifying and barred evidence about documents withheld from the bankruptcy trustee, according to a Feb. 7 docket entry.

Freeborn & Peters merged with Smith, Gambrell & Russell in 2023. The merged law firm kept the Smith Gambrell name.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge texted bailiff, clerk that he can’t…

Criminal Justice

Judge texted bailiff, clerk that he can’t be in court next day because ‘I just shot my wife,’ jurors are told

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 20, 2025, 12:32 pm CST

A California judge admitted that he shot his wife in a text to court personnel, in a police car and when sitting alone in a police interrogation room, jurors were told Wednesday.

Judge Jeffrey Ferguson of the Orange County Superior Court in California is accused of fatally shooting his wife in August 2023 while watching the AMC TV show Breaking Bad at their home and arguing about finances. Their adult son was also present.

Law360, the Associated Press and KABC have coverage.

Ferguson’s defense lawyer maintains that the shooting was an accident, according to the AP.

Orange County, California, Deputy District Attorney Seton Hunt showed jurors a copy of a text to Ferguson’s clerk and bailiff, the articles report.

“I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won’t be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I’m so sorry,” the text said.

Jurors were also shown a video of Ferguson muttering to himself in a police interrogation room, according to Law360.

“I killed her. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, convict my ass. I did it,” he said.

In the back of the police car, Ferguson said, “I killed my wife. F- – -. Ugh, s- – -,” video showed.

At the police station, Ferguson’s blood alcohol level was 0.065. Hunt said a forensic scientist would testify that the level was likely 0.17 or more when Ferguson’s wife, Sheryl, was shot.

The adult son testified that he had stepped outside as his parents argued and heard his mother say words to the effect, “Why don’t you point a real gun at me?” The son said he turned around and saw his father fire the gun, according to Law360.

Hunt is seeking a second-degree murder conviction, according to KABC. It’s unclear whether jurors will also be able to consider a manslaughter charge.

See also:

Criminal court judge, 72, arrested in wife’s shooting death

Judge who made ‘reckless’ Facebook allegation about prosecutor is admonished

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Town court judge resigns after using this…

Judiciary

Town court judge resigns after using this excuse to avoid jury duty

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 3:17 pm CST

A town court judge in Rensselaer County, New York, has resigned after allegedly asserting that he should not serve on a grand jury because he is a judge, and he thinks that people who appear in his court are guilty.

Judge Richard T. Snyder of the Petersburgh Town Court in New York agreed to resign and never return to the bench, according to a Feb. 4 press release by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Snyder made the comments in October 2023 after expressing concern that he could not serve because he wouldn’t be able to return to his court in time for evening sessions, according to a transcript and a November 2024 complaint by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

“I know everybody come in front of me, I know they are guilty. They would not be in front of me,” Snyder allegedly said.

After being told to take a seat, Snyder raised his hand and approached the Rensselaer County judge presiding over the grand jury empanelment, according to the transcript.

“I just think I cannot do it because being a judge and everything,” Snyder said.

“You don’t think you can be impartial?” the grand jury judge asked.

“No. It would not be fair,” Snyder replied.

When appearing for testimony in the ethics case in July 2024, Snyder said he thought that people who appear before him “did something wrong,” and “that’s how they got a ticket,” the ethics complaint says.

Snyder did say, however, he knows that people who are charged are innocent until proven guilty, and there must be proof of the crime.

“In my court, I treat everybody the same: equal, fair, honest,” he said.

“I try to get everybody on the right track, you know, work with them and help them out,” he said.

Snyder also said during the disciplinary hearing he didn’t want to serve on the grand jury because he cares for a grandchild, and his family is his No. 1 priority. He said he should have mentioned that to the grand jury judge, but he figured that he wasn’t going to be picked because he is a judge.

Snyder represented himself before the commission. He is not a lawyer, but he did take judicial training. He has been a judge since 2014.

The ABA Journal was unable to reach Snyder by emailing and phoning the town court where he used to work.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Accent stereotypes can influence judgments…

Criminal Justice

Accent stereotypes can influence judgments about guilt, study finds

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 27, 2025, 12:55 pm CST

A British study has found that people with accents linked to higher social status were generally judged less likely to commit crimes.

Working-class accents, on the other hand, were more likely to be associated with criminality, according to a Jan. 16 press release here and a Jan. 17 press release here.

“This shows that perceived social class, as judged from a speaker’s accent, is an important predictor of U.K. listeners’ expectations about behavior, and this might have serious implications in the criminal justice system,” said Alice Paver of the University of Cambridge, the lead study author, in one of the press releases.

Frontiers in Communication published the study, conducted by the University of Cambridge in collaboration with Nottingham Trent University.

Courthouse News Service and the Guardian have coverage.

The researchers asked 180 English-speaking people throughout the United Kingdom to listen to recordings of 10 male voices with differing regional accents. The participants were then asked to rate the voices on social traits, such as “educated,” “rich,” “working class,” “trustworthy” and “friendly.”

They were also asked to rate the voices on 10 behaviors that included crimes: “return a lost wallet to its owner,” “stand up for someone who is being harassed,” “cheat on a romantic partner,” “lie on their CV,” “report a relative to the police for a minor offense,” “drive dangerously,” “physically assault someone,” “shoplift,” “touch someone sexually without consent” and “vandalize a shop front.”

The standard southern British English accent was rated highly for status traits, such as intelligent educated and rich. The Liverpool, London and Newcastle accents were most associated with working class, followed by the Bradford accent.

Liverpool, Newcastle and Bradford accents were associated with aggressive behavior, while the standard southern British English accent was deemed least aggressive.

There was a strong correlation between status traits and ethical behaviors, such as returning a lost wallet to its owner, and a slightly stronger association between status traits and the morally ambiguous behavior of reporting a relative to police for a minor offense.

But there was a negative correlation between status traits and criminal behaviors.

Speakers with the standard southern British English accent were deemed least likely to behave in criminal ways, with the exception of committing a sex offense. Non-English accents associated with the two cities of Belfast, Northern Ireland, and Glasgow, Scotland, were also thought to be less likely to engage in crime.

The London and Liverpool speakers, on other hand, were deemed most likely to engage in morally bad behaviors, while the Liverpool and Bradford speakers were rated most likely to engage in criminal behaviors.

“These findings emphasize the fact that people carry with them their stereotyped judgments about accents when making attributions of guilt and this has serious implications for the criminal justice system,” study authors wrote. “Prejudice in the criminal justice system can come from many factors, but unlike some types, for example racial prejudice, voice or accent-based prejudice is not currently something that jurors may be aware of or warned against letting it sway their decisions.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

I’ve tried dozens of cases in my career. As with anything else, the more you look at something, the more pronounced the cracks and deficiencies become. Interestingly, Clint Eastwood’s supposed directorial goodbye, Juror #2, does a great job of focusing on one of those deficiencies, namely juror honesty and how it affects the rule of law.

With a limited theater release in November, the film, now available on Amazon Prime, stars Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp, a recovering alcoholic who received a jury summons. Through various flashbacks, we learn that although he has struggled with addiction, he seems to have his life back on track—with a baby on the way to boot.

At jury selection, he discloses to the judge that his wife has a high-risk pregnancy. The trial lawyer in me couldn’t help but chuckle when the judge noted that if he could work his day job with his wife at home alone, he could spend that time in court.

We quickly learn the trial concerns heavy allegations: after a drunken night at the bar, which included a big argument, the defendant is accused of killing his then-girlfriend by blunt-force trauma to the head as she walked home after the fight. The prosecution alleges he left her body in a ditch over the railing of the road.

The defendant, James Michael Sythe, is played by Gabriel Basso. His girlfriend, Kendall Carter, is played by Clint Eastwood’s daughter Francesca Eastwood.

Most of the movie’s first half-hour or so speeds by with a timeframe consumed with quick, exceptional vignettes from trial. The swift scene changes don’t focus too much on substance. Usually that would bother me, but the style the attorneys employ is immediately accessible. The drama is there, but it’s not overdone.

Questions and concerns

As the trial moves forward and the relevant facts begin to take shape, Justin Kemp, the juror, realizes he was at that same bar the night in question, processing a recent miscarriage. Despite spending the evening staring at a drink without breaking his sobriety, as he was driving home in the rain, he dropped his phone, and the car hit something in the dark … at the exact spot where Kendall Carter’s body was found over the railing.

The film hit a lot of different chords for me. I kept coming back to the notion that the juror had a duty to reveal this information about that night and that location. Jurors swear to answer questions truthfully during jury selection, and they hopefully honor that fact. Moreover, jurors have to alert the court when they feel they can no longer be fair and impartial—no matter when those thoughts and emotions rear their head.

The juror thinks back—after the collision, he got out of the car and looked around. He didn’t see anything or anyone, and due to a Deer Crossing sign on the side of the road, he understandably put two and two together. However, he spirals, and his negative thoughts get the best of him. Was the death his fault?

He never tells anyone about his whereabouts, although he tries his best during deliberations to prevent the jury from quickly convicting the defendant.

Without giving away too much, the movie’s pivotal question comes down to the juror’s honesty, and the concept of honesty in general. He isn’t sure if he hit the girlfriend, but he knows it’s possible. Should he let the defendant take the fall or fall on the proverbial sword himself?

Everybody lies sometimes

I’ve had trials where a seated juror approached the judge to admit that, for whatever reason, they could no longer be fair to one side or the other. And you know what? I respect the hell out of that. It still gives me faith that the system works when we’re open and honest.

At the same time, though, I know some potential jurors are less than totally honest about their perspectives, biases and knowledge of relevant facts. Sadly, a lot of this dishonesty tends to happen during jury selection, a state of the trial where those notions should and easily can be revealed to the attorneys and judge.

The fact that information is kept hidden is odd because voir dire is like an interview for a job no one wants. Disclosing that bias would be an easy out of the venire, but something keeps them from relaying the information. Even though it’s usually obvious when someone doesn’t want to be there, most folks still do everything they can to put on their best appearances and swear they’ll follow the law. People don’t want to look bad in a public setting.

So, jurors rarely admit they can’t be fair and impartial. I’ve had sex crime victims tell me during jury selection for a sex crime case that they can put their experiences aside. Can they? Maybe. Is it likely their past trauma might sneak in and bias their opinion? Certainly.

I’m sure some people have faith and conviction they’ve healed to the point where they’ve “moved on” from a horrible event like that. But a juror with that background usually isn’t getting past a concerned attorney’s preemptory challenges. Other issues aren’t always so apparent, like jurors who lie about their ability to refrain from drawing a negative implication or inference from my client’s decision not to testify.

The forgotten Fifth Amendment

I once tried a child sex crimes case where we felt we had a pretty good defense. The prosecutor admitted she wasn’t confident in a conviction, and the trial went mostly in our favor.

As with most of my cases, I didn’t know for sure whether my client would testify. We’d planned for the possibility, but once the government’s evidence came out, we felt there was more to lose than gain by getting on the stand.

I try to get ahead of either possibility by discussing the prosecution’s burden and my client’s constitutional rights during voir dire. All the potential jurors swore in various ways, multiple times, that they wouldn’t hold it against my client if he didn’t take the stand. Moreover, prior to closing arguments, as with every other trial, the judge instructed the jury it could not draw an adverse inference from my client’s decision not to testify.

After he was convicted, I contacted the jurors to see if any of them would speak with me. That’s the best way to perfect your craft and better your advocacy. Only one of the jurors was willing to talk.

Through tears, she explained that the other jurors had argued my client must be guilty since he wasn’t willing to take the stand. She reminded them what I had said and the judge had instructed. She said it was to no avail, and they finally wore her down for a unanimous verdict. I did what I could to get that information before the court, but Oklahoma’s codification of Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors testifying to matters or statements occurring during deliberations aside from a few exceptions, ruled the day.

After that trial, I had a bit of an existential examination. How could the jurors lie straight to my face? How could they disregard their oath and the instructions they received?

As Juror #2 shows, though, maybe there were other factors at play beyond my knowledge.

Still, it doesn’t make it right or OK.

---

Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice focuses solely on state and federal criminal defense. He represents the accused against allegations of sex crimes, violent crimes, drug crimes and white-collar crimes.

The study of law isn’t for everyone, yet its practice and procedure seem to permeate pop culture at an increasing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Check out our favorite 2024 photo galleries

Year in Review

Check out our favorite 2024 photo galleries

By Jackson A. Thomas

December 20, 2024, 9:18 am CST

From cartoon captions to court rulings that shaped the Endangered Species Act to book recommendations for lawyers, the ABA Journal presents our favorite photo galleries from this year. Which photo gallery was your favorite?

---

1. Labor of Love: Mark Gaston Pearce’s Art

Labor attorney Mark Gaston Pearce uses his oil painting skills to highlight service industry workers and women of color who held industrial jobs during World War II.

---

2. 9 court rulings that shaped the Endangered Species Act

Widely regarded by legal experts as one of the world’s most powerful statutes for protection of wildlife and ecosystems, the Endangered Species Act has halted the decline of hundreds of species along with protecting their habitats.

---

3. The Jury Is Out

Pop culture’s portrayal of jurors and juries shape our view of the justice system.

---

4. The Art of Phil Witte

For decades, Phil Witte balanced a civil litigation practice with cartooning and writing. After publishing various books he was able to give up his practice, and focus on cartooning full time.

---

5. King of Captions

Lawrence Wood is an eight-time first place winner of The New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest. His new book, Your Caption Has Been Selected, gives a peek behind the scenes and shares tips for success.

---

6. 25 Books for Lawyers

Looking for a good read that resonates with the legal community? Here are some suggestions.