Admissions of Juror Misconduct Not Enough for New Trial in Bulloch Domestic Violence Murder Case

The testimony of two jurors who admitted that members of the jury considered research from outside of the deliberation room is not enough to grant a woman a new trial in Bulloch County, a judge ruled last week. 

The admissions made by members of the jury follow an already inconsistent verdict in which a jury in 2022 found Ashlyn Griffin ‘not guilty’ of Felony Murder but guilty of the underlying charge that would have constituted Felony Murder – Aggravated Assault.

Case Background 

Griffin shot and killed her boyfriend, Brandon McCray, during a dispute at their home in June 2020. She was arrested the same day by the Statesboro Police Department after what the agency said was ‘a thorough investigation.’ Detectives claimed that Griffin fired two shots, within seconds of each other, but only one the first shot was justified. During the trial, the state was not able to prove which shot actually killed McCray.

The case garnered considerable attention after TheGeorgiaVirtue.com published details of the prosecution of Brandon McCray two years prior for Aggravated Assault against Ashlyn Griffin. He pleaded guilty in a negotiated plea with the state, which was represented by Chief ADA Daphne Totten, who is now the elected District Attorney.

During the trial, ADA Barclay Black suggested that the abuse by McCray, which put Griffin in the hospital in 2018 and nearly cost her a pregnancy due to pelvic hemorrhaging, was ‘not that bad.’ Court documents from McCray’s guilty plea indicate he choked and strangled Griffin before kicking her repeatedly in the stomach. On cross examination of Griffin at trial, Black asked her why she didn’t just tell McCray to ‘get away’ while he assaulted her on the day of the shooting in 2020.

The Felony Murder component of the state’s case crumbled during trial when Griffin’s attorney asked the GBI Crime Lab’s Medical Examiner if, based on the autopsy she conducted, McCray had to be upside down or ‘in a headstand’ in order for the state’s suggested bullet trajectories to match the entry and exit wounds on McCray.’ The M.E. replied with a simple ‘Yes.’

But the inconsistent verdict returned by the jury indicated they believed Griffin was not guilty of causing the death of McCray while committing a felony act (Felony Murder), but was guilty of the felonious act of Aggravated Assault. While the state argued the second bullet killed McCray, jurors effectively concluded that the first shot killed McCray and that was justified, but the second shot was assault. Ironically, the trial concluded without any evidence being presented to indicate for certain which bullet -if only one – actually killed McCray.

During the sentencing hearing, Judge Gates Peed denied the defense’s request for a directed verdict, or to act as “the 13th juror” and override the jury’s conclusions. Subsequently, Ashlyn Griffin was sentenced to serve ten years in prison followed by fifteen years on probation.

Motion for a New Trial 

Immediately following sentencing on February 21, 2022, Warnock filed a Motion for a New Trial on a number of grounds, alleging errors in the process including:

• The trial court erred in by dismissing the immunity motion on the basis that Ashlyn Griffin had not admitted to wanting to kill her abuser when she shot him.
  • During an immunity hearing, Griffin testified she didn’t intend for McCray to die.
    • Read TGV coverage on Day 1 of the immunity hearing here.
    • Day 2/Dismissal of Motion for Immunity can be found here.
    • Defense attorneys argued at the time that the underlying case law cited by the trial court had been overruled. Coverage of that can be found here

• The jury foreman conducted outside legal research to determine that a felony conviction for Ashlyn Griffin would prevent her from being able to carry a gun, and then argued to the other jurors that they should convict on one count, despite the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

• The trial court erred in admitting the abuser’s statement to his sister that Ashlyn Griffin had cut him with a knife under the “residual exception,” which requires pretrial notice and some reason to think it is reliable. Attorneys argued that “because there was no pretrial notice, and because abusers often justify beating women by falsely claiming the abuse was mutual, this was inadmissible.”

Arguments Before Judge Peed 

On April 27, 2023, Peed heard arguments from both sides. In Georgia, part of the process to seek a new trial is to request one from the same judge who presided over the initial trial.

Warnock made his case once again as he had in the written motions filed previously. During much of Warnock’s argument, Judge Peed’s law clerk, John Welch, was seen sitting in the jury box shaking his head, seemingly in disagreement. 

Keith McIntyre made arguments on behalf of the state and ADA Barclay Black was also present but did not make any arguments. McIntyre refuted much of what Warnock argued by contending that it was a volatile relationship and, with regard to testimony in question, ‘sometimes witnesses say stuff no one has heard before.’ 

McIntyre also objected to the jurors being allowed to testify in the hearing. Warnock contended that the jurors would testify that the jury foreman conducted extraneous research between Day 1 and Day 2 of deliberations and reported back to the jurors with additional information. Specifically, the jury foreman wanted to ensure Griffin was not allowed to own a gun after the trial, but thought aggravated assault would come with a fairly light sentence. 

But McIntyre said the information the foreman brought forth was not ‘prejudicial on its face’ and that allowing the jurors to testify would subject them to harassment. “It’s not uncommon for jurors to have regret,” he told the court. He also stated that jurors were not credible because it was now “after the fact.”

Ultimately, Judge Peed allowed two of three jurors to testify, but only on his questioning. He asked each juror what extraneous information was brought in and whether or not it affected their decision. Both jurors testified to the same outside information brought in by the foreman and that the information affected their decision on a verdict.

After the hearing, all three jurors expressed that they were upset that they were not able to share additional details with the court about what transpired in the jury room.

Ruling by Judge Peed 

On Friday, May 19, Peed issued an Order denying Griffin’s request for a new trial. 

On the matter of whether the immunity hearing was erroneously cut short, Peed contended that Griffin did not choose “not to admit anything” because she stated on cross examination that she did not intend to harm McCray. Peed also said that based upon the verdict, the jury found the self-defense argument “unavailing” at trial. 

On the matter of jury misconduct, Peed said “there is no indication that the “research” occurred during deliberation.” 

“Additionally, the fact that W.K. potentially discussed sentencing or criminal procedure during deliberation with another juror, and that this discussion affected her decision does not, in and of itself, show that anything improper occurred. The other juror could have potentially had some knowledge of the criminal justice system prior to serving as a juror in this case. Jurors are not expected to lay aside their knowledge and experience prior to serving on a jury. Instead, jurors are expected to bring their knowledge and experience to bear within the framework provided by the Judge’s instruction.”

As a result, Peed said there was “no reasonable possibility that the jury misconduct contributed to the conviction” and “ 

On the matter of the testimony of the sister of the deceased erroneously being permitted, Peed ruled that the testimony was ‘harmless’ and the “evidence is cumulative of the other evidence present in this case which shows that Defendant and the victim had a tumultuous relationship.”

In conclusion, Peed wrote “The verdict is not contrary to the evidence presented, has proper evidence to support it, is not decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence as presented in the case, and is not contrary to laws and the principles of justice…The evidence in this case is certainly sufficient to convince a jury that Defendant was guilty of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony.”

The next step is for the case to be heard before the Georgia Court of Appeals. That process, however, can take upwards of several months to beyond a year. Griffin will remain behind bars during the appellate process.