Kim says 4 jurors did not lie during jury selection

Businesswoman Jung Ja Kim has asked the federal court to consider holding an evidentiary hearing to evaluate attorney Ramon K. Quichocho’s claims that at least four jurors lied during jury selection.

Kim, through counsel Colin M. Thompson, also asked the U.S. District Court for the NMI to deny Quichocho’s renewed motion for judgment of acquittal.

Thompson said Kim believes the jurors did not lie or alternatively, that their relationship to Quichocho’s witnesses did not bias them as jurors.

Kim brought up the arguments in her opposition to Quichocho’s motion for a judgment of acquittal or for a new trial.

Thompson said that Quichocho, his wife, Frances, his law firm, and their company Karissa LLC have offered nothing to suggest that the court should reconsider its previous denial of judgment. Thompson said Kim believes that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings of money laundering, wire fraud, and racketeering.

“The defendants have offered no substantive argument as to why the evidence was insufficient. There is no reason for the court to disturb the jury verdict,” he said.

Thompson said the court should also deny Quichocho’s motion for a new trial.

Quichocho and co-defendants, through counsel Michael Dotts, have asked the court to issue a judgment that favors them, despite the guilty verdict handed down by the jury.

Quichocho and Dotts said Kim failed to present any evidence of money laundering or wire fraud. Furthermore, Kim failed to show a pattern of racketeering activity, Quichocho and Dotts said.

In the alternative, the Quichochos asked the court for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The two lawyers said a new trial is warranted because at least four of the jurors did not disclose during voir dire that he/she had known at least two of their witnesses.

Through voir dire an attorney can challenge a prospective juror for cause if that person says or otherwise expresses bias against the lawyer’s case.

In Kim’s opposition, Thompson said the court read a list of all the witnesses to the jurors and the judge then asked the prospective jurors whether they “knew” any of the prospective witnesses. Thompson said each of the four jurors challenged in the defendants’ motion remained silent during the court’s question.

Based on these facts, Thompson said, the defendants assert that “there is no question that the jurors in question were dishonest” because they did not disclose they knew the defendants’ witnesses.

Without citing a single example, Thompson said, the defendants contend that if the jurors had stated that they “knew” the defendants’ witnesses, this knowledge would have been enough to have each juror stricken for cause.

Thompson pointed out that this assertion is incorrect. Even if the jurors had responded that they “knew” the defendants’ expert witnesses, the defendants would not have been automatically entitled to strike these jurors for cause, he said.

He cited a Ninth Circuit decision that states: “The central inquiry in determining a juror should be removed for cause is whether that juror holds a particular belief or opinion that will ‘prevent or substantially impair’ the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.”

Thompson said the court may hold a post-trial evidentiary hearing to resolve any claims questions of juror misconduct.

“If the court believes that there is a basis for the defendants’ claims of juror misconduct, Ms. Kim asks that the court resolve all defense claims or juror misconduct at a hearing at which the defendants are free to participate,” he said.

The jury trial in Kim’s racketeering lawsuit against Quichocho, his wife, and his law firm lasted almost two months.

The nine jurors reached a unanimous verdict in March, holding the defendants liable to pay $2.4 million in damages to Kim.

The jury, however, found Kim liable to pay Quichocho and his law firm $48,221.67 in legal fees.