High court hears arguments for new trial in Vick slaying

Is Harry J. Evans entitled to a new trial in the May 2005 slaying of a St. Paul police officer because of an alleged racist remark made by a juror who helped decide his fate?

Defense attorney Lydia Villalva Lijo argued Monday morning before five Minnesota Supreme Court justices that he is, partly because prosecutors had improper contact with the juror before a hearing called to investigate allegations of misconduct.

The high court's ruling, which has no timetable, could end almost 2 1/2 years of legal wrangling in the case. Evans, 35, was convicted in January 2006 of first-degree murder in the death of Sgt. Gerald Vick. Vick's family members were in the courtroom Monday, as they have been for every court appearance on the case.

Ramsey County District Judge Kathleen Gearin in October denied a defense motion for a new trial after presiding over the hearing.

But Villalva Lijo argued Monday that prosecutors violated the rules by interviewing juror Fay Haakinson before she testified at the hearing.

What then, Justice G. Barry Anderson asked, was the court to make of a letter agreed on by prosecutors and the defense and sent by the District Court to witnesses that said, "You may ... speak with the attorneys working on this case or with persons who are working with the attorneys if you are contacted by them and if you wish to speak with them."

That letter, Villalva Lijo replied, was to allow prosecutors to interview the other witnesses, not the juror.

The rules of criminal procedure and previous case law clearly prohibit attorneys from contacting jurors, Villalva Lijo reiterated. While Haakinson wasn't "harassed" by prosecutors, her testimony clearly could have been tainted by their actions, the assistant state public defender said.

Assistant County Attorney Mitchell Rothman said the District Court authorized the contact with the juror and contended that prosecutors did no wrong.

"There is no evidence the state made any attempt to tamper with the witness juror," Rothman said.

Justice Anderson cut to the heart of the matter: "If a juror is racially biased ... a defendant couldn't get a fair trial.

"Isn't this ripe for the potential of abuse? I'm not saying there is abuse."

Villalva Lijo and Rothman each had 30 minutes to make their arguments. Villalva Lijo then had a five-minute rebuttal.

The issue in question began during the trial, when a woman called Judge Gearin's chambers saying she overheard Haakinson make a racist remark about the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court did not permit or conduct an inquiry into that information during the trial and denied a defense motion to do so after the verdict.

In April 2007, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the District Court for further inquiry into potential juror bias.