Killer's jury pool tossed

A lawyer calls the penalty phase jury selection a debacle.

By COLLEEN JENKINS, Times Staff Writer
Published August 22, 2007

ADVERTISEMENT Charles Grover Brant, 41, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in May.

TAMPA - A judge dismissed the entire jury pool Tuesday for the penalty phase of an admitted killer, likely delaying his trial for months.

Attorneys blamed a few jurors for creating a "circus-like atmosphere."

The meltdown began early in the second day of jury selection, defense attorney Rick Terrana said.

Attorneys had expected to narrow a pool of 78 down to 12 jurors and two alternates. The panel would be asked to recommend whether Charles Grover Brant should live or die for raping and strangling his 21-year-old neighbor, Sara Radfar, in July 2004.

Brant, 41, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in May, but prosecutors refused to agree to any punishment short of the death penalty.

Those facts were too much for one woman. She argued that it was a waste of time and money to allow the defendant to fight for his life, Terrana recounted.

Fry him, she said.

Twenty-three people said they felt the same way.

Circuit Judge William Fuente denied a defense motion to strike the panel.

More problems arose as the day wore on. Attorneys realized that some jurors had misunderstood the indictment; they thought the judge said Brant was accused of stabbing a child.

Later, as prosecutor Jalal Harb questioned jurors, a man who said he would lose income if jury service kept him from his musical gigs decided to speak his mind.

"I'm with you," he told Harb. "I'm ready to give him the death penalty."

He had not heard any evidence.

Defense attorneys renewed their request to throw out the panel. This time, Fuente agreed, and sent everyone home.

Terrana, a veteran defense attorney, hasn't seen it happen before. "It takes a lot to strike a panel," he said. "I've never during my career had 80 people stricken based on blatant disregard for the seriousness of the proceedings.

"It became a complete debacle."

Harb, the prosecutor, was less critical but no less frustrated. "The majority was serious about it," he said. "But because of comments made in front of everyone ... the process had been compromised."

[Last modified August 22, 2007, 00:07:13]