Jury misconduct raises questions about deliberations after mistrial in David Prevatte murder case

PENDER COUNTY, N.C. (WWAY) — As prosecutors and defense attorneys prepare for a retrial in the David Prevatte murder case, questions remain about the jury misconduct that led to a mistrial and the tensions that can develop during deliberations in a high-profile case.

WWAY’s Kamy Smelser spoke with Wilmington attorney Jamie Getty about the circumstances surrounding the mistrial and how disagreements among jurors can affect a case.

“Ultimately the judge made the right call in declaring a mistrial,” Getty said.

Judge Ricardo Jenson declared a mistrial following a series of allegations involving jurors, including claims of threats, discussions about information outside the evidence presented at trial and concerns about jurors’ conduct during deliberations.

“The jurors going in and tattling on each other was pretty crazy,” Getty said.

One juror, identified as Juror 3, was excused after allegations of misconduct surfaced. In an exclusive interview with WWAY, she claimed other jurors were targeting her because of her position on the case.

“I was one of two who felt very strongly in one way, and everybody else was very adamant. There were comments made, and there were threats made to my children. Because I was just more vocal, I feel like they were all adamant about getting me out of there, and I think that was proven today,” she said.

Juror 3 alleged that Juror 4 threatened her children by asking what she would think if the defendant had raped and murdered them.

The court determined the statement did not constitute a threat and did not investigate the allegation further.

Following Juror 3’s dismissal, additional allegations emerged involving Jurors 2 and 4.

During court proceedings, it was revealed that multiple jurors reported hearing references to a rap sheet allegedly discussed by Juror 2.

“Juror number 5 indicated yes as to hearing about a wrap sheet from juror number two and juror number seven also heard from juror number 2 about a wrap sheet,” according to statements made in court.

Juror 4 also faced questioning about whether she had knowledge of Prevatte’s prior interactions with law enforcement that had not been introduced as evidence. She denied having that information when questioned by the judge.

“It appears to the court clearly that juror number 4 was not telling the truth,” Jenson said.

Getty explained that jurors in high-profile cases may struggle to separate personal beliefs and potential biases from the evidence presented in court.

“Jurors were looking at the evidence together and deciding on what may have happened or how much weight they wanted to give each piece of evidence, those and unintentional biases come to, into their minds. And sometimes that can be difficult for everybody to see eye to eye on those issues,” Getty said.

As allegations continued to surface, Prevatte’s defense attorney, Johnson Britt, argued that the entire jury panel had been “poisoned” and requested a mistrial.

Getty said jurors must follow strict rules when weighing evidence and reaching a verdict.

“Especially with the perception by other jurors that something inappropriate happened. The jurors take an oath and they are supposed to only consider the instructions that the that the court gives. So whenever they go back there, they have to take that seriously,” Getty said.

The case is now expected to return to court for an administrative session on Nov. 13.

Prevatte’s defense attorney has also raised the possibility of moving the retrial outside the Cape Fear region because of the extensive publicity surrounding the case.