A juror received a mysterious text before convicting a drug trafficker in San Diego kidnapping/murder case, now the defense might want a new trial

Brian Alexis Patron Lopez was found guilty for his role in killing a 19-year-old San Diego resident over about 2-3 pounds of meth. Then the text message came to the court's attention.

(screenshot)

In March, a jury found Tijuana resident Brian Alexis Patron Lopez guilty for his role in the kidnapping and murder of a 19-year-old kid from San Diego who stole a few pounds of meth, as several media outlets have already covered. Four others have already taken plea deals and are waiting for a sentencing hearing on July 11.

Now comes the latest twist.

During Patron’s trial, Juror No. 1 received a mysterious text message from a sender unknown to her, with a name similar to an alleged drug smuggler who had been mentioned briefly during the defense’s cross-examination of a witness.

The juror did not disclose the text to the court until right after the guilty verdict against Patron on March 19. The court brought it to everyone’s attention the next day.

Government prosecutors said it was an “unfortunate spam message” with no bearing on the outcome.

But Patron’s attorney called for an evidentiary hearing, arguing that Juror No. 1 “irrevocably tainted” the jury discussion with speculation about the text message.

“Although the record, as it stands now, is sufficient to order a new trial, at a minimum the Court must hold an evidentiary hearing where the parties are allowed to question the entire jury on the scope of the taint/misconduct,” read the motion by Meghan Blanco, Patron’s attorney.

In April, U.S. District Court Judge William Q. Hayes agreed there was enough reason to call the jurors in for an evidentiary hearing. “After conducting the hearing, the Court will then set a briefing schedule and consider any motion related to this jury issue that Patron chooses to make,” Hayes wrote.

Seven jurors showed up for questioning on May 16, four on May 19 and the final one on May 21. Now there’s a July 14 deadline for motions to be filed by Patron’s side, followed by a July 28 deadline for the government to respond.

Court documents say the text was from someone named Vanessa with a Denver area code asking Juror No. 1 about attending an event. During the trial, the defense questioned a witness about someone named Vaness. There was also a government witness in the case (referred to as J.M. in court documents) who had been arrested about 113 miles away in Pueblo, Colorado.

Government prosecutors downplayed the text in a March 31 briefing, urging that “the Court make a finding that the contact was innocuous, consistent with the rationale below, take no further action, and proceed to sentencing.”

The “rationale below” refers to their arguments that the text “intersects with this case in two unrelated and negligible ways,” and that the message itself was unrelated to the case:

First, the name “Vaness” was raised once, in passing. It appears in Government Exhibit 107, pg. 13. When defense counsel asked about “Vaness” on cross examination, A.L. answered that she was someone who imported controlled substances for him, presumably from Tijuana to San Diego. “Vaness” was not mentioned again at trial. Second, J.M. was arrested in a hotel in Pueblo, Colorado, a city over 100 miles from Denver with a different area code. Once again, the location of J.M.’s arrest was only mentioned in passing and played no role in either side’s presentation of evidence or arguments in opening or closing.

“Most importantly,” prosecutors added, “the Court used an anonymous jury. Only government and defense counsel knew the names of the jurors and at no point were their names mentioned in open court. Furthermore, nobody had the jurors’ phone numbers.”

But the motion filed by Patron’s defense attorney accused Juror No. 1 of lying to the bailiff when she said she hadn’t shared the message with the other jurors.

“On its face, the extraneous communication received by juror number one is presumptively prejudicial,” Blanco wrote. “Because juror number one dramatically compounded the impact of the message by discussing it with all other jurors, and the jury’s consideration of the communique became inextricably intertwined in its deliberative process, the presumption of prejudice cannot be rebutted.”

Prosecutors tried to argue that Blanco had not sufficiently demonstrated that the text swayed the outcome of the case because she had not “provided a declaration from a fact witness,” such as the retired Department of Homeland Security special agent who is working as an investigator for Patron.

Blanco did claim that the investigator tried to talk to Juror No. 1 at her workplace.

“However, two individuals who identified themselves as FBI agents were already on site, and they advised the resident security guard that Investigator Dennison was not part of their envoy and should not be allowed in,” Blanco’s motion says.

Government prosecutors say: “That did not occur and makes no sense. Even if an FBI agent knew where Juror 1 was employed (and the case agents did not), it would make no sense for an agent to camp out in front of Juror 1’s office after the trial at precisely the same time Mr. Dennison was trying to contact this juror and then block his access.”

The investigator spoke with Juror No. 3, who said jurors discussed the text message “at length,” Blanco wrote in the motion.

The judge ultimately decided that the evidentiary hearing was necessary to “develop the record” before determining whether Juror No. 1’s contact with Vanessa was 1) possibly prejudicial and 2) whether there was a credible risk of affecting the outcome of the case.