Lawyers for the man convicted of being cop killer Maurice Clemmons’ getaway driver contend prosecutorial and juror misconduct cost their client a fair trial.
Defense attorneys Mary K. High and Peter Mazzone want the four first-degree murder convictions against Dorcus D. Allen thrown out and a new trial ordered, according to court documents filed this week.
Pierce County prosecutors improperly stated the law during closing arguments and a juror committed misconduct by considering information that wasn’t introduced during the trial, High and Mazzone wrote in a pleading.
Their request has been noted for a hearing before Superior Court Judge Frederick Fleming later this month.
Deputy prosecutor Phil Sorensen said Thursday he’s not worried. Prosecutors are preparing a written response, he added.
“I would expect that we’ll be conducting a sentencing on June 17,” said Sorensen, who tried the case with colleague Stephen Penner.
Jurors deliberated for more than four days before convicting Allen on May 19 as an accomplice in the Nov. 29, 2009, deaths of Lakewood police Sgt. Mark Renninger and officers Tina Griswold, Ronald Owens and Gregory Richards.
Prosecutors argued at trial that Allen, knowing what Clemmons intended to do, drove his friend and employer to and from the vicinity of a Parkland coffee shop where Clemmons gunned down the officers as they gathered for breakfast.
High and Mazzone argued that Allen, 40, was ignorant of Clemmons’ plan that morning, despite the gunman’s earlier rants about hating cops and wanting to kill them.
The crux of the case came down to whether Allen knew or, in the words of Penner during his closing argument, “should have known,” what Clemmons intended to do that Sunday morning.
High objected at least twice during Penner’s closing argument when he intimated that “should have known” would be enough to convict Allen. Fleming overruled the objections.
“By arguing that Mr. Allen ‘should have known’ versus the requirement that he did know, the state impermissibly lessened their burden of proof,” the defense team wrote in its pleading seeking a new trial.
“Because jurors relied on this mistake of law in determining Mr. Allen’s guilt, he was irreparably prejudiced and is entitled to a new trial.”
The defense attorneys cited a note the jury sent out during its deliberations and comments some jurors made to the news media after the verdict to bolster their contention.
The note asked, “If someone ‘should have known’ does that make them an accomplice?” Fleming referred jurors to their written instructions – which spelled out the burden for finding someone an accomplice – for their answer.
At least three jurors told reporters outside court they thought Allen should have known what Clemmons intended to do when he drove him to the vicinity of the coffee shop.
“We believe him coming back by the Forza, he saw the cop cars and, to me, he had a reasonable assumption that Maurice was going to do that,” juror Jim Smith said.
The defense team also contends juror Inga Galtney either lied during jury selection about how much she knew about the case or did improper research during deliberations, both of which prejudiced Allen.
High and Mazzone based that argument on a comment Galtney made to them after the verdict regarding Allen’s previous criminal history in Arkansas.
“He ran from the law and came here to Washington to Maurice Clemmons,” Galtney wrote in a declaration obtained by the defense team. “They had connection. They were from the same state so am sure they shared thoughts. Allen should have known what Clemmons was going to do.”
The information regarding Allen’s criminal history in Arkansas was not brought out at trial, the defense team wrote in its pleading.
“Regardless of how or when she acquired this information, it is misconduct for a juror to inject extra-judicial information into deliberations,” the pleading states.
Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644
adam.lynn@thenewstribune.com
blog.thenewstribune.com/crime
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.