YOUNGSTOWN — Testimony from the 15 surviving jurors in the 2008 Bennie Adams murder trial does not substantiate that any juror knew — prior to end of trial — that Adams had previously been in prison for rape.

A juror obtaining information about a defendant from improper sources, prior to a trial being over, can be ruled juror misconduct and can be grounds for a defendant getting a new trial.

But Judge Anthony Donofrio of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court ruled recently that there was no credible evidence juror misconduct took place — and no grounds for giving Adams a new trial.

Adams, 65, was convicted in 1985 of killing Youngstown State University student Gina Tenney, 19, of Ashtabula, his upstairs neighbor in an Ohio Avenue duplex.

The jury recommended that Adams get the death penalty. The late Mahoning County Judge Tim Franken imposed the sentence, which was later reduced to 20 years to life in prison. Adams, who remains in the Ohio prison system, did not attend the hearing.

When asked last week whether the Ohio Public Defender’s Office would appeal the judge’s decision, Renee Severyn, assistant public defender, said the public defender’s office did not want to discuss the case “at this time.” The office represented Adams at the hearing.

WHAT JURORS KNEW

U.S. District Court Judge James S. Gwin had ruled Donofrio, who oversees the court Franken ran, needed to have a hearing to determine whether any jurors knew that Adams had been convicted of rape and spent 17 years in prison in another case before the 2008 trial. Gwin also ordered Donofrio to determine when the jurors knew that information.

Questioning of 13 of the 16 jurors took place during a hearing June 12 in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, while two other jurors were deposed, interviewed outside of the courtroom with a stenographer taking down what was said. One juror has died since the trial.

Only one of the 15 surviving jurors remembered any conversation among jurors that suggested anyone knew that Adams previously had been convicted of rape.

In Donofrio’s 11-page ruling, he detailed that male juror’s testimony, which took place over Zoom because of the juror’s health issues. The man said that a specific female juror told him near the end of the trial that Adams previously had been in prison for rape.

“He suggested she was trying to help him and make him feel better,” the ruling states. The male juror had been struggling with the decision on whether to vote for Adams to get the death penalty and the female juror was “worried about his mental well-being,” the ruling states.

The female juror told this to the male juror after the jury had voted for the death penalty, but before the verdict had been announced in open court, the male juror said.

When the female juror he mentioned was asked about it, however, she said she “does not know how she would have had that information to be able to pass it on to somebody else, and that is not something she would have done,” the ruling states.

She said she had no memory of the male juror and said she did not remember having the conversation the male juror said had occurred. She said she did not know at any point during the trial or penalty phase the reason why Adams previously had been in prison.

She said the first time she learned that Adams had previously been in prison was after the trial was over, when former assistant prosecutor Dawn Cantalamessa told jurors about it. She said she found the male juror’s comments untruthful.

Donofrio ruled that he found “all of the testimony consistent, except for that of” the male juror, who claimed “at least three jurors knew of Adams’ prior conviction during the trial.”

DINNER CONVERSATION

The male juror testified to being told by another female juror that Adams had “been in jail for another rape. I don’t know if she said the number of years, but it was lot of years. And she said ‘We were dying to tell you,’ ” the ruling states.

This conversation took place at a dinner attended by about 10 jurors after they left the courthouse — after the trial and penalty phases were complete, the male juror said. He described the female juror by her hair color and age, which was different from the other female juror.

He testified that he surmised that three jurors knew about Adams’ previous rape conviction because a second female juror told him at the restaurant that “we were all dying to tell you (about the prior conviction),” the ruling states.

The male juror said he assumed “we” referred to her and the male jury foreman, “as he was a part of the conversation. Thus, based upon her comment, he believed she learned this information during the trial. However, as the (the male juror) acknowledged, this is mere speculation.”

The judge found that based on all of the testimony, it would be reasonable to infer that the “dying to tell you” remark was made to the male juror after the jury had completed its work during the trial and penalty phase.

He noted that there is a “direct conflict between” the male juror’s recollection of a female juror telling him just before the death penalty verdict was read that Adams had been in prison previously for rape, and the recollection of the female juror.

“Notably she stated she learned this information from Dawn, the prosecutor, after the jurors were dismissed, which is consistent with the testimony of several other jurors,” the ruling states.

WHO WAS CREDIBLE?

The judge noted that “while (he) does not find that (the male juror’s) testimony was necessarily intentionally dishonest, it does not comport with the memories of his fellow jurors.”

The judge also found that the male juror “appeared to be skeptical in many respects.”

The judge pointed to the man’s remarks about seeing fellow jurors communicating in the parking lot each day, saying it “bothered me because these are people who didn’t know each other before the trial, so what else are they talking about.”

The judge said he found the testimony of the female juror “more credible” than the male juror’s testimony.

Furthermore, the judge found that “Adams’ prior conviction was not considered or even discovered during deliberations” on whether Adams was guilty or innocent.

The judge said he concluded that “the information about Adams was learned after the verdict was delivered and the jury was officially discharged from its duties. For these reasons, the court hereby finds the claims of juror bias are unsubstantiated.”