Convicted rapist cites juror's blog in appeal

CONCORD, N.H. --New Hampshire's Supreme Court is considering whether a convicted rapist got a fair trial after a man who posted disparaging comments about the case on the internet later became foreman of the jury that voted for the conviction.

Stephen Goupil is serving at least 35 years in prison after being found guilty of leading a home invasion in Laconia in April 2004 and repeatedly raping a 24-year-old woman at knifepoint. He was convicted of five counts of rape and one of theft.

Goupil's lawyer argued to the high court on Thursday that Scott Vachon should not have been allowed to sit on the jury because statements he posted on a website that Goupil's lawyer said showed Vachon did not understand the legal system's presumption of innocence.

Goupil's lawyer, Mark Sisti, said the trial court should have set aside the verdicts after learning that Vachon, a member of the Laconia School Board, referred to defendants as "local riff raff" on a personal Web blog four days before jury selection.

Vachon also is said to have posted a statement in which he said he was frustrated to have to serve on a jury that would require him to spend time listening to defendants trying to prove they were innocent.

Sisti told the Supreme Court the comments showed Vachon had prejudged the case and raise questions about Vachon's respect for the American legal system's principle that defendants don't have to prove they are innocent -- the prosecution has to prove they are guilty.

Vachon did not post any comments specific to Goupil, but Sisti said the postings proved he was unfit to judge the fate of his client.

During the trial, Judge Larry Smukler responded to news of the posts by questioning the jurors about their ability to be fair. Smukler determined that Vachon had listened to jury instruction and could fairly judge the case based on the evidence. He rejected Sisti's motion to set aside the verdicts.

Sisti raised questions on Thursday as to whether Vachon was truthful when he allegedly told the judge that he could serve on the panel without bias and that he understood the law as it applied to the case at hand.

During Thursday's session, Chief Justice John Broderick told Sisti many people say "things on the street" and turn out to be good jurors.

But, he questioned how the Supreme Court could be sure that Vachon's attitude toward the defendant and his understanding of the legal process changed after the trial began.

"Was there a magical transformation ... aren't you concerned about that," he asked Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Cort, who represented the state.

Cort said Vachon posted the comments before the trial began.

"There was no connection to this defendant," he said, and stressed that Smukler met with Vachon and, after questioning him, was satisfied he understood the application of the law.

More than one of the justices asked what line needed to be crossed to undeniably prove that a juror should be removed, in light of such unprovoked comments about serving on a panel that would ultimately deem the fate of the accused.

Goupil's cousin and alleged accomplice has not yet gone to trial.

------

Information from: Citizen, http://www.fosters.com/citizen