OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — A former assistant district attorney in Oklahoma has been handed a six-month suspension after he was found watching a live feed of jury deliberations in a high-profile murder case. The state’s highest court finalized the suspension of Isaac Seth Brantley Shields on March 25, following events that challenged the integrity of the courtroom.
The incident, which took place on July 1, 2022, during the trial of Robert Kent Kraft of Chouteau, Oklahoma, involved Shields observing a jury as they deliberated over a case in which Kraft was accused of fatally stabbing a man in self-defense. The jury’s discussions were meant to be private, held in an adjacent courtroom specially arranged due to COVID-19 protocols. This room featured three security cameras, which were left inadvertently active, broadcasting the jurors’ non-verbal communications without capturing their spoken words.
Approximately two hours into the deliberations, Shields was permitted entry into a locked security office where monitors displayed the live feed. Shields purportedly entered under the pretext of a security concern involving Kraft’s family at the courthouse, but this incident occurred several hours after his entry, raising questions about his motives and actions during the viewing.
Shields admitted that his curiosity about the jurors’ prolonged deliberations led him to remain in the room, and he further invited a fellow prosecutor to observe. During this time, Shields manipulated camera controls to zoom and pan across the jury room and shared his observations openly with security personnel and a colleague.
The incursion was eventually reported by a deputy who was alarmed by the prosecutors’ access to the video feed. When confronted, Shields provided unclear responses concerning the duration of his observation and the clarity of the video feed, which he described as grainy. Investigations later revealed that Shields had watched the jury for over two hours.
This oversight led to a mistrial in the Kraft case, now pending appeal, due to the breach of confidentiality and the potential influence on the trial’s outcome. Both Shields and the second prosecutor involved self-reported their actions to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
In his defense, Shields claimed that he did not gain an unfair advantage from the incident and cited instances where court officers, including judges, had overheard juries during loud deliberations. Despite these claims, his actions were deemed a serious interference with judicial processes and a breach of trust.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in their judgment, acknowledged several mitigating factors in Shields’ case, including his military service, his compliance with the subsequent investigation, and his voluntary resignation and acceptance of responsibility. Shields also entered a deferred prosecution agreement admitting to the unlawful observation of the jury, though he insisted it was without intentional law-breaking.
Shields’ attorney, Sheila Naifeh, maintained silence on the matter, offering no comment regarding the suspension.
As Shields continues to fulfill his obligations under the deferred prosecution agreement and his work with Lawyers Helping Lawyers, his case serves as a poignant reminder of the ethical boundaries crucial to maintaining justice and trust in the legal system.
This article was prepared automatically by OpenAI. The details, including names, facts, or circumstances mentioned, may not be accurate. Readers who wish to request corrections, retractions, or removals should contact [email protected].