In an extraordinary development following a six-day trial in San Diego federal court, a juror raised alarming concerns over unsolicited text messages received after the trial’s closing arguments, prompting a rare judicial inquiry into their potential impact on the verdict.
The text message that spurred these concerns appeared on Juror No. 1’s phone late one evening, identifying the sender as ‘Vanessa’ from a Colorado area code.
Initially dismissing the exchange as spam, Juror No. 1 became apprehensive upon reviewing her trial notes during deliberations the next day.
With two co-defendants in the case linked to Colorado and one testifying about an associate named ‘Vaness,’ these connections fueled her worries about the possibility that someone related to the violent crime they had just been deliberating was attempting to reach her.
Some of her fellow jurors were consulted for their opinions, further complicating her instinctual judgment of the texts.
U.S. District Judge William Hayes took the unusual step of summoning the jurors back to court nearly two months after the trial concluded, where they were placed under oath to discuss the texts.
Despite the rare nature of such hearings—considered almost sacred due to rules protecting the deliberation process—Hayes felt he had no choice but to address the issue as it raised concerns of potential prejudicial influence on the jury’s decision to convict Brian Alexis Patron Lopez.
During the proceedings, five of the jurors testified they were unaware of the messages, while Juror No. 1 and six others who had seen or heard about the texts revealed that they believed the messages were spam and assured the court that the texts had not affected their verdict.
Judge Hayes now faces the pivotal task of determining any impact the messages might have had on the trial’s outcome.
Amy Kimpel, a law professor at California Western School of Law, noted that extraneous influences on jurors are one of the few exceptions that allow courts to question jury deliberations under Federal Rules of Evidence 606.
Kimpel stated that this situation is exceptional, as the sanctity of jury deliberations is generally upheld without inquiry.
Under oath, Juror No. 1 expressed that her worry about the messages led her to report them to a bailiff after the trial concluded, emphasizing they did not alter her conviction decision.
Despite such assertions, defense attorney Meghan Blanco pointed out the gravity of the issue, claiming that Juror No. 1’s concern could have tainted the entire jury panel, thus justifying a new trial for Patron.
Blanco argued that Juror No. 1’s actions shifted the jury’s focus from the trial’s facts to the implications of the unsolicited messages.
In light of these developments, Hayes called the jurors for a subsequent examination to provide clarity on the impact of the messages.
The trial centered around the brutal kidnapping and murder of 19-year-old Miguel Anthony Rendon, involving Patron and several accomplices accused of taking Rendon hostage and ultimately killing him to elevate their status within a drug-trafficking ring.
During the trial, the jury had been informed that one co-defendant, Jonathan Emmanuel Montellano-Mora, was arrested in Pueblo, Colorado, and had direct ties to drug smuggling.
These revelations, coupled with the concurrent mention of an associate named ‘Vaness,’ introduced a layer of complexity about potential links between the jurors’ fears and the reality of the case they were examining.
After being presented with the evidence over a couple of days, the jury reached a verdict in about five hours of deliberation, convicting Patron of several severe charges, including intentional killing while engaged in drug trafficking.
Following the verdict, concerns regarding Juror No. 1’s apprehensions came to light when she informed a bailiff about the context of the Colorado texts and the perceived connections to the trial.
This prompted Judge Hayes to take immediate action, setting a hearing where jurors could express their knowledge and opinions regarding the texts.
Had Juror No. 1 communicated her concerns during deliberations, there could have been a straightforward resolution, allowing for the possibility of replacing her with an alternate before the verdict was reached.
However, once the decision was reached, the legal avenues to amend the jury’s composition closed.
As a result, the defense attorney argued for a new trial based on potential prejudice that may have tainted the jury’s conclusions, emphasizing the weight of the implications surrounding Juror No. 1’s actions.
During the hearings held by Judge Hayes, Juror No. 1 conveyed that the exchange with ‘Vanessa’ seemed odd, particularly when claims were made about their meeting at a charity gala—a gathering she does not attend.
Despite her best efforts, she remained unsettled, expressing doubts to fellow jurors about the messages’ significance.
Her fellow jurors reassured her the texts were disconnected from the case, asserting they were merely coincidental in nature.
To date, neither Patron’s defense attorney nor federal prosecutors have filed any motions following the juror testimonies, pending further considerations.
If Patron decides to pursue a new trial as anticipated, it remains uncertain how long Judge Hayes will take to arrive at a decision on the matter.
Kimpel raised important considerations for both sides of the argument, highlighting the necessity of balancing the defendant’s right to a fair trial against the procedural complexities of reopening such a sensitive case.
As the situation evolves, Patron is set to receive sentencing in August, while three of his co-defendants face sentencing in July.
image source from：https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/06/01/a-san-diego-juror-received-an-apparent-spam-text-could-it-upend-a-hostage-taking-murder-verdict/
