Cayce’s Lazzarini trial ending was ‘rare,’ confusing. What it means and what comes next
What was already a high-profile criminal trial in Lexington County became even more noteworthy this week when it produced a highly unusual outcome.
After jurors returned a “not guilty” verdict in the manslaughter trial of Cayce doctor Adam Lazzarini, prosecutors asked to poll the jury, a normally routine function in which each juror individually affirms they agree with the verdict they just delivered.
But in a Lexington courtroom Thursday, one juror said she did not agree with the verdict, indicating she thought Lazzarini might be criminally responsible for the 2017 shooting death of William Player Holland.
Without unanimous support from the jury, the verdict in Lazzarini’s favor was invalidated and the outcome of the case briefly thrown into confusion. Judge Debra McCaslin sent the jury back into deliberation, and moments later the jurors returned to reaffirm their “not guilty” decision.
Legal experts said that while not unheard of, a juror changing their mind when polled is far from the normal outcome.
“I’d say it’s rare,” said Kenneth Gaines, an emeritus law professor at the University of South Carolina law school. “When the jurors come out, polling them is routine, but unless they come out as a hung jury (without a unanimous decision), polling doesn’t change anything.”
S.C. Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, who worked as an 11th circuit assistant prosecutor from 2014 to 2016, said it was highly unusual for a member of the jury to flip his or her vote when polled, then reverse his or her vote shortly after.
“It would be a very problematic situation if it went the other way,” Caskey said — meaning that if a juror had flipped his or her vote from guilty, to not guilty, then back to guilty, it would raise concerns about a process that assumes defendants are innocent until proven guilty. “The benefit of the doubt should always go to the accused because it’s the state’s burden to prove people who are accused.”
But because Lazzarini was acquitted, the law gives the prosecution fewer avenues to appeal, to try to get the verdict thrown out and get another shot at convicting the defendant. Gaines said the only avenue is to challenge the judge’s decision to send jurors back to deliberate on the verdict again, but is skeptical that would be successful.
“The prosecution’s hands are pretty much tied,” Gaines said. “I don’t see the prosecution winning on appeal... to send the jury back to deliberate, the judge is definitely within her rights to do that.”
McCaslin gave the jurors what’s know as an Allen charge, in which a judge can instruct the minority of a deadlocked jury to reconsider their position. It’s sometimes called a “dynamite charge” because it can dislodge an entrenched juror from their position, as happened Thursday.
While we can’t know what happens in the jury room, “like anywhere else, peer pressure plays a role,” Gaines said.
S.C. Rep. Seth Rose, D-Richland, who worked as an assistant prosecutor for Richland County from 2007 to 2011, said the “highly unusual” last-minute decision for a juror to change his or her mind illustrates the unknown power of influential jurors in deliberations.
“I have never seen anything like that, I’ve heard of things like that,” Rose said. “It just goes to show you don’t know who could be leading that conversation when you go back in that room.”
“Attorneys and prosecutors do the best they can… to figure out who they’re putting on the jury and what life experiences they bring to the trial, but there’s truly no way to know what’s going on in the mind of a jury,” Rose said. “Picking a jury can be one of the most important things you do during a trial.”
The rare, if fleeting, success of polling Lazzarini’s jury shows how important the routine questioning of jurors can be. When Gaines taught trial advocacy, he stressed with his students to always ask for a poll after a verdict.
“If you’re the defense, that can change a ‘guilty’ to a ‘not guilty,’” he said.
Thursday’s verdict doesn’t mean Lazzarini is out of the woods in relation to Holland’s death. Holland’s mother has a pending wrongful death suit against the doctor, and a civil jury could still reach a different conclusion about the Cayce doctor’s responsibility for the shooting than the criminal court.
Now that his manslaughter trial is complete, Lazzarini is subject to giving a deposition under oath in the Holland family’s wrongful death suit, as well as other requests from the plaintiff that had previously been put on hold while he still faced criminal charges, according to court filings in the civil case.
That lawsuit in state court was stayed while Lazzarini sought to declare bankruptcy. Lazzarini filed for bankruptcy protection in federal court in February 2019. Holland’s estate and family were named as creditors in bankruptcy filings, but did not receive anything in the court’s final accounting of Lazzarini’s assets in August 2020.
A 2020 order from a bankruptcy judge says the Hollands can proceed with their claims 45 days after the conclusion of Lazzarini’s criminal case.
.jpg)