Interview with juror in Mavrick murder case

CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: In the question about whether the juror found Mavrick's statement about Grant stabbing him credible, (The Daily Moth) mistranslated it as Mavrick possibly holding the knife and tripping -- the juror meant that Grant might have been holding the knife and tripped and fell on Mavrick. The juror said they believe that Mavrick had that perception that his life was in danger and reacted.

Last night I did an interview via video relay with one of the 12 jurors in the Mavrick Fisher murder trial.

The juror agreed to do an interview only on the condition of their name being anonymous. I do not want to disclose the gender of the juror, so I will use “they” pronouns instead of “he or she.”

I asked the juror if they understood the interpreters clearly. The juror said they did and emphasized that they felt confident about the translation because there were three interpreters and they would help each other out to correct mistakes.

I asked what was it that made the jury decide on an acquittal (not guilty) on the first degree murder charge. The juror said they looked at all of the evidence and did not feel that the prosecutor proved it beyond a reasonable doubt that Mavrick had malice or an intent to kill Grant Whitaker.

I asked for the juror to explain the deadlock on voluntary manslaughter — it was a 4 “guilty” and 8 “not guilty” deadlock.

The juror said each charge has specific elements to it and they couldn’t agree on voluntary manslaughter so they agreed on involuntary manslaughter because they believed Mavrick acted out of self defense.

I asked what the main thing was that caused the divide. The juror said the jury couldn’t come to an unanimous agreement on one of the elements required to convict someone of voluntary manslaughter. The juror said they couldn’t remember what that specific element was, but that it was something about the heat of the moment or an argument. The juror said the murder did not happen immediately after an argument but later on, that it was not like a bar fight where someone got mad and killed someone during a fight. The juror said Mavrick thought that his life was in danger and acted to protect himself, so that’s why they took away the “voluntary” part and made it “involuntary.”

I asked the juror if they found Mavrick’s testimony, which lasted three days, to be credible. The juror said they did and they tried to put themselves in his place as a deaf person and tried to imagine how frightening it must have been in that situation. The juror said they are aware that there are people who don’t think Mavrick’s testimony was credible, but they said after they looked at the evidence and his testimony, they thought Mavrick made sense.

I asked the juror if they believed in Mavrick’s testimony that Grant tried to stab him with a knife. The juror said that maybe it was just what Mavrick thought happened, that it was his own perception, but emphasized that his finger did get cut badly. The juror said from looking at the pictures, they determined that the cut didn’t come from a rock or a fan belt. The juror said it was possible that (Grant) had the knife for his protection or tripped and fell, but the juror believed that Mavrick thought his life was in danger and he reacted.

The juror said there were some witnesses who said Grant Whitaker had anger problems and would lose his temper, but there were other witnesses who said Grant was not this type of person.

[Sponsored Video from Convo: https://www.convorelay.com/] 

I asked why the jury agreed to downgrade the grand theft auto charge to unlawful taking of a car. The juror said it was one of their easier decisions because they didn’t see that Mavrick had an intent and a plan to take the car. The juror said after Grant died, Mavrick had to use the car to get out of the area and then left the car someplace instead of continuing to drive it with the intent to keep it. Mavrick didn’t drive to Mexico with the car.

The juror said some of the evidence that was presented by the DA Susan Krones “did not make sense” because it didn’t match up, such as the size of the tent from the pictures and the information that they provided. The juror said it didn’t match up.

I asked what it was like for the jury during their two and a half days of deliberations. The juror said it was very emotional because it was a very difficult decision that had a lot of weight — the jury had to decide whether to take away Mavrick’s life or not.  

I asked the juror on how some people compared the trial with the O.J. Simpson trial and asked if it was a fair comparison. The juror said no, that it was not even close. The juror said they believe that O.J. got acquitted only because of his fame, status, and wealth. The juror said they believe that O.J. killed his wife, but that in this case, they didn’t think Mavrick acted with malice.

The juror said they felt bothered by the comments that people made on the case because they made judgments but they weren’t there in the courtroom, did not see the evidence, and did not experience what they had to go through. The juror said it was the most difficult thing they have ever experienced.

The juror said it was not true that they didn’t understand the case because they were hearing individuals. The juror said they did understand and were able to look at both sides and do have empathy for both sides, and that being a hearing person in a deaf trial did not have an impact on the verdict. The juror said they did not have “pity” for deaf people like some commenters said.

So, that’s the information I got from the interview. Keep in mind that this is just one of the 12 jurors.

The District Attorney Susan Krones will make a decision this Friday, December 4, on whether she wants a re-trial on the deadlocked charges of voluntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. We will be covering the hearing on Friday and will make an announcement on specifics by Wednesday.

Mavrick’s sentencing for involuntary manslaughter and unlawful taking of a vehicle will happen on December 21.