Judge decides no misconduct among jurors for Maestas

A District Court judge denied child killer Beau Maestas' plea to be resentenced Friday, saying he found no misconduct occurred while jurors contemplated Maestas' fate.

Judge Donald Mosley's ruling means Maestas' death penalty remains in place.

Maestas pleaded guilty in 2005 to fatally stabbing 3-year-old Kristyanna Cowan after a minor methamphetamine deal between Maestas and Cowan's parents went bad. Cowan's sister, Brittney Bergeron Himel, was left paralyzed during the attack.

Jurors considering Maestas' sentence had four choices: they could have chosen death, life with the possibility of parole, life without the possibility of parole, or 100 years with parole eligibility after 40 years. The jury unanimously chose death.

Three years later, a juror, Rachel Poore, contacted Maestas' attorneys and claimed the jury forewoman, Tina Ransom, made inappropriate comments that swayed the vote.

Attorneys have argued for months whether the forewoman made comments that amounted to jury misconduct. Mosley said Friday that she did not.

As far as the credibility of the juror who came forward, "I think it is absolutely nonexistent," Mosley said. "It was a clear case of remorse. She became an advocate of the defendant."

When jurors were interviewed and later asked to take the stand to testify about how their deliberations unfolded, Poore explained she was wracked with guilt after the sentence was announced. She contacted Maestas in prison and asked for his forgiveness.

She testified that she told Maestas she planned to have a tattoo inked on her body with his name and she sent him a sketch of a dove, which she said represented peace and freedom.

According to Maestas' attorney, after the first vote was taken in the deliberation room, some jurors opted for the death penalty while others voted in favor of life without the possibility of parole. At that point, according to the juror, Ransom commented that she is a dispatcher in Boulder City and she had seen defendants who were sentenced to life without parole walking the streets with electronic monitoring devices.

Ransom testified in September that she never said she had "special knowledge" about sentencings or about how the parole board works. She said she made the statements based on news reports and watching television.

Prosecutors said Ransom's comments stemmed from "general water cooler knowledge."

Attorney Tony Sgro argued that if there was any doubt Ransom's statements swayed her fellow jurors, Maestas deserves to be resentenced.

"The state should want everything to go right if we're going to kill someone," Sgro said. "The state shouldn't be in a position where you are defending misconduct to exact capital punishment."

Mosley found it difficult to believe jurors would put a lot of weight into Ransom's comment, suggesting that most people know dispatchers aren't in tune with the intricacies of the law. He also questioned whether Ransom said Maestas "could" be released or "would" be released.

"It's fair to say there was no jury misconduct in this case," Mosley said. "I can tell you the death penalty is not inappropriate."

Contact reporter Adrienne Packer at apacker@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710.