IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA, Case No. 19-0010

Plaintiff,
v.

MAX MAXIMUS, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

JASON DOETING,
AND KYLE WORDY

Defendant.

Under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24, the defendant, Mr. Jason Doeting, moves

for a new trial on the grounds that jury misconduct denied his right to due process under both the

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Iowa

Constitution.

1. On [DATE], Mr. Doeting was convicted in a jury trial on one count of First Degree

Murder under Iowa Code § 707.2 and one count of Conspiracy to Commit Murder under

Iowa Code § 706.1, 706.3(1), and 707.1.

2. During the trial, the jury was exposed to extraneous evidence not introduced through the

trial proceedings or authorized by the court.

3. Specifically, during deliberations one of the jury members looked up Mr. Doeting’s

Facebook page and saw that Mr. Doeting had posted pictures of himself with guns. The

jury member shared this information with the rest of the jury.

4. As the court did not know this evidence was discussed during jury deliberations, there

was no opportunity for either a cautionary or curative instruction regarding it.

1
5. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)(b)(2) provides that the court may order a new

trial “[w]hen the jury has received any evidence . . . out of court not authorized by the

court.”

6. “[W]hen there is proof that extraneous material has reached the jury room, the party

seeking to overturn the verdict must show that the misconduct was calculated to, and with

reasonable probability did, influence the verdict.” State v. Henning, 545 N.W.2d 322,

324-25 (Iowa 1996).

7. “The impact of the misconduct is judged objectively to determine whether the extraneous

information would prejudice a typical juror.” Id. at 325.

8. The question is “whether the material was of a type more likely than not to implant

prejudice of an indelible nature upon the mind.” Id.

9. The instructions read to the jury in this case specifically admonished them not to research

or reference the case outside of the trial, whether online or through social media

including Facebook. See Jury Instruction No. [#].

10. Given the aforementioned instruction, the act of the juror in looking up additional

information on Facebook during jury deliberations “highlight[s] jurors’ blatant disregard

of the district court’s unambiguous admonition to refrain from the use of social media

during the trial.” State v. Christensen, 918 N.W.2d 502 (table), 2018 WL 186535, *3

(Iowa Ct. App. 2018) (unreported).

11. One of the jurors thought that the introduction of the Facebook photos to jury deliberation

was significant enough to inform the defendant’s attorney of it in private email after the

verdict was reached.

2
 12. Given the place of gangs and gang membership in this case, the fact that a juror went out

of his way to look up the defendant and present the gun photos to the rest of the jury

shows objectively that his actions were “calculated to, and with reasonable probability

did, influence the verdict.” Henning, 545 N.W.2d at 324-25.

13. Unlike other Iowa decisions denying a defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon a

juror “liking” Facebook statuses, in this case the juror misconduct has a bearing on the

merits of the case and the defendant’s character, and was done during deliberations, as

opposed to after reaching a verdict. See e.g. State v. Webster, 865 N.W.2d 223, 235 (Iowa

2015) (denying defendant’s motion for a new trial when a juror “liked” the victim’s

mother’s Facebook status after a verdict was reached).

14. “It is a bedrock component of our system of justice that an accused charged with a

criminal offense receives a fair trial before an unbiased decision-maker.” Id. at 233.

Conclusion

WHEREFORE, the defendant asks the court to grant this motion for a new trial and set

this matter for a hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Exam # 169
Attorney for the State

Copy to Polk County Attorney.

Copy to the Defendant.