Florida Prosecutors Make Petition To Question Parkland Shooting Trial Juror Following Co-juror Threat

Prosecutors in the high-profile trial of the Parkland school shooter have asked for an interview with law enforcement officials from the perspective of a juror who claims to have been intimidated by another member of the panel.

On Thursday night, the Broward County State Attorney’s Office submitted its motion.

Florida Prosecutors Make Petition To Question Parkland Shooting Trial Juror Following Co-juror Threat
Florida Prosecutors Make Petition To Question Parkland Shooting Trial Juror Following Co-juror Threat

The vote came hours after the jury in the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, recommended life in prison without parole for Nikolas Cruz.

The petition claims that at about 2:00 p.m., Juror X phoned the state attorney’s office and asked to speak with Assistant State Attorney Michael Satz, the primary prosecutor in the Parkland shooting case.

A juror identified as X told a member of the support staff that “While in the jury chamber deliberating, she got what she took to be a threat from another juror.

The state attorney’s office allegedly did not call back after Juror X left a message but did submit a notification with the court, as stated in the petition.

There may have been criminal activity, hence the State is requesting an interview to look into the matter “the document said.

The interview with Juror X is to be conducted by law enforcement, not the court, as requested in the application.

The much-anticipated ruling from the jury on Thursday had grieving family members shaking their heads and choking back tears. Many people expressed their disappointment with the verdict in post-deliberation remarks.

At least one of the 17 counts (one for each victim) needed to be unanimous for the jury to recommend the death penalty.

The jury identified both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and ultimately decided that each of the 17 victims deserved life in prison without the possibility of parole. The jury decided that the shooter’s life sentence was appropriate since the aggravating circumstances were not severe enough to overcome the mitigating circumstances.

 

Scroll to Top