https://lawandcrime.com/crime/what-she-did-was-disgusting-juror-who-caused-mistrial-in-murder-case-slapped-with-contempt-charge-max-jail-time/

A juror who lied and derailed a resentencing trial where a man faced the death penalty in Florida was held in contempt of court and thrown into jail for the longest possible sentence on Thursday, arrest records reviewed by Law&Crime show.

Kayla De Peña was arrested and hauled into jail by sheriffs in an Orange County courtroom on Thursday after Judge Mark Blechman laced into her for her actions last fall that upset the resentencing of convicted murderer Bessman Okafor.

"You have thwarted justice more than anybody I have seen in my 42 years as an attorney. Your case deserves the maximum sentence that I can impose," Blechman told the 26-year-old woman, according to Orlando ABC affiliate WFTV.

If it were possible to sentence De Peña to serve a day in prison for each one that the jury heard evidence in Okafor's case before she derailed it 280 days total the judge said he would have done so.

He also told her he would have hit her with a fine of $200,000, the equivalent to the costs the trial created overall.

Instead, he sentenced De Peña to 179 days in prison, the maximum sentence allowable, and fined her just $500 for contempt of court.

A new resentencing trial for Okafor is set to take place Jan. 16.

Jurors heard 195 days of testimony before beginning deliberations for the resentencing. After six hours of deliberations, the jury had not yet decided on whether to sentence Okafor to die. One juror said they needed to sleep on it for a night, though the group was close to a decision.

Testifying in court this week, one juror said he recalled how De Peña "thumped the table and sat back" clearly unhappy when she learned she might have to return to deliberate another day, WFTV reported.

Another juror, Tayla Lira, said De Peña was upset because she needed to be at work that night and when jurors were told they would be sequestered, De Peña lashed out.

"She said she was about to make that a mistrial," Lira said, adding De Peña had slept through most of the deliberations.

In November, De Peña told the court she had discussed the case with a friend and that made her ability to be impartial impossible. On Thursday, she told Blechman that was a lie and that she made it up to get out of jury service and that at the time, she was struggling financially.

She said she was "extremely sorry" for her actions and apologized to members of Zaldivar's family.

Zaldivar's father had no sympathy for the woman, curtly telling WFTV, "That girl doesn't give a damn."

Every once in a while, a turd gets what's coming to him/her. Rarely, for sure….

Okafor killed fellow Floridian Zaldivar.

'Lord of the Rings' Florida style.

Honestly, I can understand her reasoning. 195 days is a long time, and she's probably taking a serious pay cut to be stuck in court for 6 months. Compensation is only like $30-$40 a day, so after 6 and a half months anyone would be hurting.

I sat on a month long trial and we were asked before jury selection if we would be able to serve on a long term trial. Financial Hardship was a legit reason for the judge to dismiss you.

My employer would cover any length of a trial so I couldn't claim it.

There was a murder case up here years ago in which one juror was strongly against the death penalty.

Even though it was clear that the defendant was guilty, he refused to vote guilty because the defendant could face the death penalty. So it was 11-1 for conviction day after day after day.

The juror holding out was someone I knew. He had a garage in which he was the only employee and being on the jury was costing him a lot of money.

When the jury told the judge that they were deadlocked and wanted to have it over with, the judge told them that they would be deliberating until they had a unanimous verdict no matter how long it took.

The juror who was holding out couldn't afford to keep holding out and so the next day, he made it 12-0 for conviction.

eric76 said:

---

There was a murder case up here years ago in which one juror was strongly against the death penalty.

Even though it was clear that the defendant was guilty, he refused to vote guilty because the defendant could face the death penalty. So it was 11-1 for conviction day after day after day.

The juror holding out was someone I knew. He had a garage in which he was the only employee and being on the jury was costing him a lot of money.

When the jury told the judge that they were deadlocked and wanted to have it over with, the judge told them that they would be deliberating until they had a unanimous verdict no matter how long it took.

The juror who was holding out couldn't afford to keep holding out and so the next day, he made it 12-0 for conviction.

---

He should have never been selected for jury duty.

Couldn't he have voted to convict him, then refused to vote for the death penalty during the sentencing phase, so that way, he wouldn't be voting for him to get away with it?

lethalninja said:

---

Couldn't he have voted to convict him, then refused to vote for the death penalty during the sentencing phase, so that way, he wouldn't be voting for him to get away with it?

---

I suspect that the defendant didn't want any local jury deciding his sentence.

In my county, a defendant should not want the jury determining his sentence. A local jury is far more likely to give the defendant the maximum possible sentence.

In one case a few years ago, a defendant in a statutory rape case (a 28 year old man with a 14 year old girlfriend) wanted probation and the judge was willing to give him the minimum sentence which did include some prison time. Since a jury could sentence him to probation, the defendant asked for a jury to determine the punishment. Instead of the probation he wanted or the minimum sentence the judge was ready to award, the jury gave him the maximum.

I thought this is why they have alternative jurors.

eric76 said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Couldn't he have voted to convict him, then refused to vote for the death penalty during the sentencing phase, so that way, he wouldn't be voting for him to get away with it?

---

I suspect that the defendant didn't want any local jury deciding his sentence.

In my county, a defendant should not want the jury determining his sentence. A local jury is far more likely to give the defendant the maximum possible sentence.

In one case a few years ago, a defendant in a statutory rape case (a 28 year old man with a 14 year old girlfriend) wanted probation and the judge was willing to give him the minimum sentence which did include some prison time. Since a jury could sentence him to probation, the defendant asked for a jury to determine the punishment. Instead of the probation he wanted or the minimum sentence the judge was ready to award, the jury gave him the maximum.

---

I was on a jury once and there were two jurors holding out for not guilty. We got them to finally agree when we promised to not sentence jail time.

What we didn't know is the judge was allowed to change sentencing and he changed it to jail time.

A similar problem occurred in the first trial of Katherine Magbanua, who was one of the co-conspirators in the murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel.

The trial was very lengthy due to the complexity of the conspiracy. The evidence was overwhelming. A juror refused to vote to convict her because her child would be left without a mother if she went to prison. They sat in the deliberation room for days with a 11-1 vote to convict until the judge finally declared a mistrial for a hung jury.

doubledog said:

---

I thought this is why they have alternative jurors.

---

Alternates don't participate in deliberations. Once the case goes to the jury, alternates are typically dismissed.

Was it in Texas, cause if a jury gives someone probation in Texas, the judge is allowed to sentence them to jail time as a condition of probation (there was an aggravated assault case I saw where the jury gave the defendant probation and the judge ordered her to serve sixty days in jail as a condition of her probation)?

Quote:

---

When the jury told the judge that they were deadlocked and wanted to have it over with, the judge told them that they would be deliberating until they had a unanimous verdict no matter how long it took.

---

That's grounds for an overturn. Judge can't give that charge. They can give an Allen charge, but that's it - referring to a US Supreme Court decision approving a charge where the judge encourages the jurors in the minority to reconsider their position in light of the evidence.

eric76 said:

---

There was a murder case up here years ago in which one juror was strongly against the death penalty.

Even though it was clear that the defendant was guilty, he refused to vote guilty because the defendant could face the death penalty. So it was 11-1 for conviction day after day after day.

The juror holding out was someone I knew. He had a garage in which he was the only employee and being on the jury was costing him a lot of money.

When the jury told the judge that they were deadlocked and wanted to have it over with, the judge told them that they would be deliberating until they had a unanimous verdict no matter how long it took.

The juror who was holding out couldn't afford to keep holding out and so the next day, he made it 12-0 for conviction.

---

Knowing you on these boards it wouldn't have surprised me if this person was you. I know it wasn't you though because if it was those deliberations would still going on to this day.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Honestly, I can understand her reasoning. 195 days is a long time, and she's probably taking a serious pay cut to be stuck in court for 6 months. Compensation is only like $30-$40 a day, so after 6 and a half months anyone would be hurting.

---

Most of my work career, I had my own small businesses and could not afford to be on a jury for 195 days. I always was able to make sure I was struck or, most of the time I would have the judge dismiss me during voir dire.

A 6 month long trial is criminal imo. Jury for a trial like this needs better compensation.

In addition to better compensation, maybe they could also get a lifetime exemption from jury duty due to the length of the case.

lethalninja said:

---

Was it in Texas, cause if a jury gives someone probation in Texas, the judge is allowed to sentence them to jail time as a condition of probation (there was an aggravated assault case I saw where the jury gave the defendant probation and the judge ordered her to serve sixty days in jail as a condition of her probation)?

---

Yes it was in Texas

JamesE4 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Couldn't he have voted to convict him, then refused to vote for the death penalty during the sentencing phase, so that way, he wouldn't be voting for him to get away with it?

---

I suspect that the defendant didn't want any local jury deciding his sentence.

In my county, a defendant should not want the jury determining his sentence. A local jury is far more likely to give the defendant the maximum possible sentence.

In one case a few years ago, a defendant in a statutory rape case (a 28 year old man with a 14 year old girlfriend) wanted probation and the judge was willing to give him the minimum sentence which did include some prison time. Since a jury could sentence him to probation, the defendant asked for a jury to determine the punishment. Instead of the probation he wanted or the minimum sentence the judge was ready to award, the jury gave him the maximum.

---

I was on a jury once and there were two jurors holding out for not guilty. We got them to finally agree when we promised to not sentence jail time.

What we didn't know is the judge was allowed to change sentencing and he changed it to jail time.

---

Well in the case I was on.for a week. We convicted guilty in like 10 mins. But it took a full day of arguing over the sentence because some wanted jail, and some wanted probation and then the time of the probation was debated. Finally got 7 years probation and then the judge threw her in jail the maximum she could ( 6 months I believe)

doubledog said:

---

I thought this is why they have alternative jurors.

---

Alternate jurors are in case a juror has to drop out for some reason. They can't replace a juror just because the juror refuses to vote a certain way.

Belton Ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There was a murder case up here years ago in which one juror was strongly against the death penalty.

Even though it was clear that the defendant was guilty, he refused to vote guilty because the defendant could face the death penalty. So it was 11-1 for conviction day after day after day.

The juror holding out was someone I knew. He had a garage in which he was the only employee and being on the jury was costing him a lot of money.

When the jury told the judge that they were deadlocked and wanted to have it over with, the judge told them that they would be deliberating until they had a unanimous verdict no matter how long it took.

The juror who was holding out couldn't afford to keep holding out and so the next day, he made it 12-0 for conviction.

---

Knowing you on these boards it wouldn't have surprised me if this person was you. I know it wasn't you though because if it was those deliberations would still going on to this day.

---

How in the world could anyone possibly think that I am against the death penalty? Sheesh!

For what it's worth, when someone I did know was executed for murder, I was quite happy about it. The only thing I was upset about was that it took them so damned long for the state to execute him and his brother.

Has nothing to do with your thoughts on the death penalty. It's about your willingness to argue a point until the end of time.

Belton Ag said:

---

Has nothing to do with your thoughts on the death penalty. It's about your willingness to argue a point until the end of time.

---

If I'm convinced the defendant was guilty, you bet I'll argue however long it takes if some bleeding heart feels sorry for him and wants to turn him loose on society.

Quote:

---

Jurors heard 195 days of testimony before beginning deliberations for the resentencing.

---

Resentencing?

Did a sentencing trial take 195 days and had there already been a sentence handed down?

He had previously gotten the death penalty, but his death sentence was overturned and a new sentencing hearing was ordered, so this was his second sentencing hearing to determine whether or not he should get the death penalty. The jury was deliberating when the mistrial happened, so he hadn't been sentenced a second time.

Did the 195 days include the trial, sentencing and "resentencing"?

Wouldn't a new jury be selected for a the "resentencing"?

And that took 195 days? How long was the trial?

This is why it's cheaper to house them till death...

The new sentencing hearing was 195 days and it was a different jury than the one who sentenced him to death the first time.