Two convicted in Michigan Governor kidnap case. Complaints against juror quashed

Two men were convicted of a perpetrated kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and sent to trial. The defense had complained about a rogue juror who apparently had made up his mind about the trial from the moment it began. This the defense counsel came to know from witnesses who work with the juror to whom the latter had conveyed his intention.

The defense counsel in the Michigan Governor kidnap case requested that the juror be dropped from the jury, to which the judge turned down the request. The documents related to the complaint were unsealed by the judge accordingly.

The US District Judge Robert Jonker informed that the juror in the Michigan Governor kidnap case was interviewed personally and the conclusion was that the person was upright and unbiased. The judge declared that the court is quite satisfied with the juror and sees no reason why he should be dismissed.


The juror in the Michigan Governor kidnap case categorically denied having made statements about making up his mind regarding the case to anyone. The responses of the juror were analyzed and the judge made his conclusions accordingly.

The judge also informed the court about the way the juror responded during void dire which is the formal examination of an accused. The juror promised that he would be making his inferences on the case based on the finding presented by the defense lawyers.

Defense Attorneys of Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr were not satisfied with how the entire episode had turned out. The attorney for Barry Croft had alerted the court staff about how the juror behaved after the defense had given their closing arguments.



Beyond that, no other information was shared at that time. The accused were convicted and found guilty on all counts.

Attorney Blanchard who was defending Croft felt that the court might directly deal with the issue so that negative publicity towards this is not created.

The following day Blanchard informed that he had more information on the juror from one of his co-workers. The incumbent juror had shared information that he was going to be picked for the case as a juror. The incumbent had at that time informed the co-worker that he/she would ensure that the defendants were pronounced guilty. The information, later on, was learned not from a direct source but an indirect one.

The judge, therefore, continued with the juror till the end of the case, and rightly so as it would have been a gross waste of time for all if the case was held up. All witnesses against the errant juror had refused to testify and hence the judge concluded that for the sake of the case the juror should continue.

The judge also denied the request of Blanchard to declare the judgment a mistrial due to the presence of the juror during the case. The judge had to seriously sound off the defense attorney for “talking crap and wasting time”. The convicts plotting to kidnap the governor would now be in jail for life.