Ex-jailer found guilty of urinating on inmates
Possible juror error leaves case unresolved, however.
By Ryan Slight
News-Leader
An atypical three-day Greene County jury trial reached a bizarre conclusion Wednesday evening.
After deliberating for less than an hour, jurors found former jailer Justin K. Hastings guilty of four misdemeanor assault counts for urinating on four inmates in July 2001.
But Circuit Judge Don Burrell had not yet accepted the verdict Wednesday because of possible jury misconduct.
A juror admitted after the verdict was reached that she read about the case Tuesday in the News-Leader, prompting defense attorney Dee Wampler to consider a motion for a new trial. Jurors are instructed not to read or view media reports about a trial until it concludes.
"This is a very unusual ending to a very unusual case," Wampler said. "I didn't foresee this. ... We're all up in the air. We've been found guilty ? maybe."
Assistant Greene County Prosecutor Cynthia Rushefsky was pleased by the jury's decision, but frustrated when the hang-up occurred.
"I don't think you would be able to print what I thought," Rushefsky said. "The last thing we needed was for this to happen."
The jury foreman sent the judge a note around 5 p.m. saying the group had reached a verdict, and also expressed concern that a juror mentioned something from a newspaper article afterward.
"We felt we needed to say something," the foreman said.
Burrell called in the juror, who admitted she read some of a Tuesday newspaper article about the trial. Attorneys questioned whether it influenced her decision.
Burrell gave attorneys 10 days to submit arguments on whether the verdict was acceptable.
Hastings waived a jury sentence after the verdict problem. He is tentatively scheduled to be sentenced before Burrell on Aug. 18 ? if the judge accepts the verdict.
The 23-year-old former jailer could serve up to 15 days in jail and a $300 fine on each misdemeanor count upon sentencing if convicted.
"He's prepared to do his time and get on with his life," Wampler said.
The defense attorney is uncertain whether he will seek a new trial if the judge granted one.
Hastings, who was the only witness called by Wampler during the trial, admitted in court that he urinated through a grate into a jail recreation room where inmates were playing basketball.
The defendant said he never intended to urinate on specific inmates.
"I don't have an explanation. I had to urinate," Hastings said. "There's no excuse for what I did."
The former jailer admitted knowing prisoners were below in the room while he showed a new jailer around the facility between 10 and 11 p.m. on July 29, 2001.
"I heard a basketball bouncing," he said, "but I was uncertain where anyone was standing."
Hastings said he didn't glance down at the prisoners after urinating, but recalled hearing the inmates remark that liquid was falling.
The defendant, who is seeking a career in the U.S. Marines, admitted the action embarrassed his family and friends in the law enforcement community.
"I can't apologize enough," Hastings said. "If physical contact was made with them, it is offensive."
Prosecutors contended in their closing arguments that Hastings abused his authority by urinating on the inmates, especially when he had a first-day rookie jailer with him.
Dan Patterson, assistant Greene County prosecutor, noted the prisoners were pre-trial detainees at the time of the incident. They are now serving prison sentences at the Department of Corrections.
"The sky was the only source of freedom they had in their lives, and that was precious to them," Patterson said.
Hastings could have urinated anywhere on the large gravel roof, or in a restroom that was less than a two-minute walk away, he observed.
The prosecutors advocated jail time for Hastings so he could view life from an inmate's perspective. Sheriff Jack Merritt has a plan to keep Hastings out of a dangerous situation if he is jailed, prosecutors said.
But defense attorneys felt a conviction was inappropriate in a case they claimed was poorly investigated.
Jail officials testified that the inmates were ordered to shower and their uniforms were taken for washing shortly after the incident ? leaving no evidence from the prisoners or their clothes.
A DNA expert said urine samples taken from the jail roof corresponded with Hastings' DNA. However, defense attorneys said there was no proof that Hastings' urine and not another jailer's landed on the inmates.
"You really learned nothing from the state's case that we didn't stipulate to in the first 30 minutes," Wampler told jurors.
In his opening statement in the trial, Wampler conceded that Hastings had urinated on the inmates. But he challenged the notion that there was evidence that Hastings' urine had struck the men.
"The only thing you learned is that they did a really lousy job of investigating."
Defense attorney Joseph Passanise said Hastings did not agree with another jailer to urinate on the prisoners.
"If there was a conversation to conspire to do this to four inmates, where is the evidence?" Passanise said. "This is just something that happened."
Passanise encouraged jurors not to worry about the four inmates, who each received $25,000 in a settlement from Greene County.
"Don't feel sorry for them. They got $25,000 ... for this offensive, rude, degrading conduct. It's a civil matter, not criminal," Passanise said.
But Rushefsky asked that Hastings be imprisoned not for the inmates' sake, but for society's.
"If we let Mr. Hastings walk away from this, we've said something important about what kind of community we are. If we say, apply the law to some people, and not apply it to others, we've said something very important about us," Rushefsky advised jurors.
"(Former South Africa President) Nelson Mandela said the true measure of a society is in the way it treats its prisoners. ... All men are created in God's image, and you don't piss on it."
Possible juror error leaves case unresolved, however.
By Ryan Slight
News-Leader
An atypical three-day Greene County jury trial reached a bizarre conclusion Wednesday evening.
After deliberating for less than an hour, jurors found former jailer Justin K. Hastings guilty of four misdemeanor assault counts for urinating on four inmates in July 2001.
But Circuit Judge Don Burrell had not yet accepted the verdict Wednesday because of possible jury misconduct.
A juror admitted after the verdict was reached that she read about the case Tuesday in the News-Leader, prompting defense attorney Dee Wampler to consider a motion for a new trial. Jurors are instructed not to read or view media reports about a trial until it concludes.
"This is a very unusual ending to a very unusual case," Wampler said. "I didn't foresee this. ... We're all up in the air. We've been found guilty ? maybe."
Assistant Greene County Prosecutor Cynthia Rushefsky was pleased by the jury's decision, but frustrated when the hang-up occurred.
"I don't think you would be able to print what I thought," Rushefsky said. "The last thing we needed was for this to happen."
The jury foreman sent the judge a note around 5 p.m. saying the group had reached a verdict, and also expressed concern that a juror mentioned something from a newspaper article afterward.
"We felt we needed to say something," the foreman said.
Burrell called in the juror, who admitted she read some of a Tuesday newspaper article about the trial. Attorneys questioned whether it influenced her decision.
Burrell gave attorneys 10 days to submit arguments on whether the verdict was acceptable.
Hastings waived a jury sentence after the verdict problem. He is tentatively scheduled to be sentenced before Burrell on Aug. 18 ? if the judge accepts the verdict.
The 23-year-old former jailer could serve up to 15 days in jail and a $300 fine on each misdemeanor count upon sentencing if convicted.
"He's prepared to do his time and get on with his life," Wampler said.
The defense attorney is uncertain whether he will seek a new trial if the judge granted one.
Hastings, who was the only witness called by Wampler during the trial, admitted in court that he urinated through a grate into a jail recreation room where inmates were playing basketball.
The defendant said he never intended to urinate on specific inmates.
"I don't have an explanation. I had to urinate," Hastings said. "There's no excuse for what I did."
The former jailer admitted knowing prisoners were below in the room while he showed a new jailer around the facility between 10 and 11 p.m. on July 29, 2001.
"I heard a basketball bouncing," he said, "but I was uncertain where anyone was standing."
Hastings said he didn't glance down at the prisoners after urinating, but recalled hearing the inmates remark that liquid was falling.
The defendant, who is seeking a career in the U.S. Marines, admitted the action embarrassed his family and friends in the law enforcement community.
"I can't apologize enough," Hastings said. "If physical contact was made with them, it is offensive."
Prosecutors contended in their closing arguments that Hastings abused his authority by urinating on the inmates, especially when he had a first-day rookie jailer with him.
Dan Patterson, assistant Greene County prosecutor, noted the prisoners were pre-trial detainees at the time of the incident. They are now serving prison sentences at the Department of Corrections.
"The sky was the only source of freedom they had in their lives, and that was precious to them," Patterson said.
Hastings could have urinated anywhere on the large gravel roof, or in a restroom that was less than a two-minute walk away, he observed.
The prosecutors advocated jail time for Hastings so he could view life from an inmate's perspective. Sheriff Jack Merritt has a plan to keep Hastings out of a dangerous situation if he is jailed, prosecutors said.
But defense attorneys felt a conviction was inappropriate in a case they claimed was poorly investigated.
Jail officials testified that the inmates were ordered to shower and their uniforms were taken for washing shortly after the incident ? leaving no evidence from the prisoners or their clothes.
A DNA expert said urine samples taken from the jail roof corresponded with Hastings' DNA. However, defense attorneys said there was no proof that Hastings' urine and not another jailer's landed on the inmates.
"You really learned nothing from the state's case that we didn't stipulate to in the first 30 minutes," Wampler told jurors.
In his opening statement in the trial, Wampler conceded that Hastings had urinated on the inmates. But he challenged the notion that there was evidence that Hastings' urine had struck the men.
"The only thing you learned is that they did a really lousy job of investigating."
Defense attorney Joseph Passanise said Hastings did not agree with another jailer to urinate on the prisoners.
"If there was a conversation to conspire to do this to four inmates, where is the evidence?" Passanise said. "This is just something that happened."
Passanise encouraged jurors not to worry about the four inmates, who each received $25,000 in a settlement from Greene County.
"Don't feel sorry for them. They got $25,000 ... for this offensive, rude, degrading conduct. It's a civil matter, not criminal," Passanise said.
But Rushefsky asked that Hastings be imprisoned not for the inmates' sake, but for society's.
"If we let Mr. Hastings walk away from this, we've said something important about what kind of community we are. If we say, apply the law to some people, and not apply it to others, we've said something very important about us," Rushefsky advised jurors.
"(Former South Africa President) Nelson Mandela said the true measure of a society is in the way it treats its prisoners. ... All men are created in God's image, and you don't piss on it."
