John Prano

ALPENA — Attorney Rick Steiger is seeking a retrial for client John Prano, 34, due to an alleged not-impartial jury and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Prano was found guilty in a three day jury trial in October of one count of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) first degree for a person under the age of 13. Prano was originally charged with five total counts: four first degree CSC charges and one second degree CSC charge. The jury found Prano not guilty of the other four charges.

Prano had a motion hearing on Wednesday in the 26th Circuit Court where he appeared via Zoom from the Alpena County Jail. Steiger was present in the courtroom along with Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Alyssa Miller, with Judge Ed Black presiding.

Steiger requested an evidentiary hearing, which is a hearing where both parties present evidence like documents and sworn testimony in order for a judge or administrative body to make a ruling.

Steiger said he has contacted a different attorney to argue the evidence at the hearing, but did not name the attorney. That attorney will present evidence of a not-impartial jury and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a situation in which a criminal defendant’s legal representation fails to meet the minimum standards of competence and diligence expected from attorneys, according to Cornell Law School.

Steiger claimed that one of the jurors was an advocate for sexual assault victims through Hope Shores Alliance.

“We did reach out to two jurors who did state that (there) was an advocate who mentioned numerous times they had been an advocate for sexual assault victims through Hope Shores,” Steiger said. “They were very influential in…the jury room.”

Steiger said that initially, the jury came back with five guilty verdicts.

The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on statements made by the prosecutor during the trial that should have been objected to that were clearly not relevant and clearly prejudicial against Prano, Steiger said.

He said that one juror informed a member of the staff at the Northeast Michigan Regional Defender Office, where Steiger is the chief defender, that another juror focused on that prejudicial statement during deliberations.

“If this matter does proceed to sentencing, I have no doubt it will be returned by the Court of Appeals,” Steiger said. “No doubt in my mind, in 25 years, this is clearly the one case I’ve had–Mr. Prano simply did not receive a fair trial.”

Judge Black asked how Steiger can meet the burden of proving that the jury was not impartial when Prano was found guilty of only one of the five charges.

“That was the only charge, I have no doubt in my mind, if it was an impartial jury, he would have been found not guilty,” Steiger said.

He said he believed there was a compromise verdict, which is reached when jurors adjust their true views on certain issues to achieve a unanimous decision.

Judge Black asked if he had an affidavit from either of the two jurors that informed Steiger of the alleged partiality of the jury. Steiger said he did not but that the two jurors will be contacted before the evidentiary hearing.

Judge Black said from his recollection that the advocate juror was never specifically asked whether she worked for Hope Shores Alliance.

Steiger said that she failed to disclose at any time throughout the jury selection process that she had a potential bias.

“And again, a bias that allowed her to find not guilty on five different counts,” Judge Black said.

“I think it was a compromise verdict,” Steiger said.

Miller said she feels the entire process of contacting the jurors and asking about their deliberations is extremely inappropriate.

“The fact that these jurors came, they did their civic duty, they found somebody guilty of a crime, and now they’re being investigated by the defense, they’re being asked questions about their deliberation,” Miller said. “What is supposed to be looked for legally under the law is any outside or extraneous influence that the jury had during the trial, did they look up things about the case…things like that, not whether they had experience in their own life.”

Jurors are instructed before deliberation to listen to the experiences of each other when making a decision, she said.

Miller reiterated Judge Black’s point that Hope Shores was never brought up when questioning the jurors. The Hope Shores affiliated juror said when asked that she could be fair and impartial.

Judge Black responded that he appreciates the fact that Miller doesn’t want the jurors to be questioned and their names made public to a certain extent, but that Steiger has a responsibility to make sure that there was no jury misconduct.

As for the ineffective assistance of counsel, Steiger said he used an Artificial Intelligence tool that gave him a wrong answer.

Judge Black asked how that affected the overall outcome of the case, since that is one of the prongs that has to be met for there to be ineffective assistance of counsel.

Steiger added that the prejudicial statements made about Prano were pieces of information that never should have come in.

“He was painted falsely in the eyes of the jury, and again, your honor, I believe Mr. Prano is entitled to a new trial.”

Judge Black will issue a written opinion on the matter, though it was not stated when that opinion will be issued.

Reagan Voetberg can be reached at 989-358-5683 or rvoetberg@TheAlpenaNews.com.