• News Ticker alerts

A Vista man convicted of multiple rapes is requesting a new trial, most likely based upon “juror misconduct,” his attorney said in court today.

Deputy Public Defender Matthew Roberts spoke on behalf of Jeremy Ryan Stutzman, the defendant who was found guilty of sexual assault and kidnap and a dozen other felonies in April. The attack on his two young female neighbors, aged 19 and 20, occurred in May of 2011. Stutzman, now 34, had previously been convicted of a similar sexual assault in 2000 and already spent ten years in prison for those crimes.

Soon after the jury began deliberating on the most recent case, on April 5 2012, notes started coming out of the jury room to the judge, stating that one of the jurors was “not willing to deliberate.”

After the judge encouraged the jurors to continue on for about a full day, in spite of notes from four different jurors, Juror Number Three was eventually called into the courtroom.

Superior Court Judge Richard Mills and the attorneys for both defense and prosecution carefully questioned the male juror. That juror was clear that he was not “willing to deliberate any further on this case” and “I’d rather discontinue, yes sir.”

All parties agreed at that time that the juror would be dismissed. Another male juror, an alternate, replaced Juror Number Three and the new jury came to unanimous verdicts after a full day of deliberations.

Defense attorney Roberts has said he will file paperwork asking Judge Mills to unseal information about the empanelled jury, and he expects to call the dismissed juror back into the courthouse as a witness in a future hearing.

  • News Ticker alerts


SurfPuppy619 July 24, 2012 @ 5:51 p.m.

I remember this guy. Total loser...... The case will probably be reversed because they dismissed a juror that was holding out-why the public defender allowed that is pretty dumb.


Visduh July 26, 2012 @ 8:20 a.m.

While it took a while, the judge did dismiss the non-functioning juror and replace him with an alternate and the jury went in and deliberated and reached a verdict. This is a real stretch by the defense, but don't defense attorneys look under every rock for something to negate a guilty verdict? I think the judge is reviewing this motion so that he cannot be accused of dismissing it without proper consideration. As reported, this dismissal of a juror and replacement by an alternate is just the way the system is supposed to work. Furthermore, the dismissed juror was probably a hold out for acquittal. Why else did a jury that convicted him have members who complained about his conduct? But at the time, the defense had no objection to the replacement, or so Eva reports. That was when a motion for mistrial should have been lodged.


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!