The justices heard oral arguments Thursday morning in Chelsea Crossland v. State of Indiana 23S-LW-00244.

Counsel for Crossland, Samuel Beasley, a solo practitioner in Muncie, argued that the jury at the trial was prejudiced against Crossland by pretrial publicity and social media posts, which violated her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. Supervising Deputy Attorney General Tyler Banks countered that there was simply no evidence to support the claim of a prejudicial jury.

Crossland was tried in Jay County in 2023 for the 2022 death of her son. In appealing her murder conviction, she argued to the Supreme Court she did not receive a fair trial because she was not allowed to remove certain jurors and she was prevented from attempting to impeach the testimony of her boyfriend, who was a witness in the case.

During the oral arguments, the justices were focused on the prejudicial juror standard established by the Indiana Supreme Court in its 1965 ruling in Ward v. State. This case set a strict test for when a court may have erred in allowing prejudicial jurors, creating a high standard for finding a Sixth Amendment violation.

In Ward, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled, “The conduct of counsel in the presentation of argument to the jury is within the discretionary control of the trial judge in the first instance, and unless there is an abuse of this discretion which is clearly prejudicial to the rights of the accused, the ruling of the trial court should not be disturbed.”

However, Beasley argued the court should instead use the analysis defined in its 2013 ruling in Oswalt v. State. There, the court established a lower standard than in Ward. Using the Oswalt standard, Beasley told the justices, the trial court would have violated Crossland’s right to a fair trial by not using a for-cause strike to remove prejudicial jurors.

Banks refuted this argument from Beasley, stating that Ward should be the case law that applies. He then argued that even if the court decides to apply to Oswalt, there is no evidence that there was an objectionable juror.

Justice Christopher Goff asked Bank about the evidence of a juror who allegedly had shown prejudice against Crossland during jury selection. Banks responded that any prejudice the juror had was not of consequence because the juror was “rehabilitated” during the trial.

The issue of rehabilitation of jurors became a major contention during oral arguments. While the justices seemed convinced by Banks’ assertions that a juror can be rehabilitated, Beasley continued to argue jurors cannot overcome their prejudices toward a party in a trial.

“An objectionable juror cannot be rehabilitated,” said Beasley.

During the oral argument, there appeared to be a stark contrast between the two counsels in presenting their cases. The justices peppered Beasley with questions, which he seemed to struggle to answer and which seemed to prevent him delving into his second argument that he made in his brief, which stated that the trial court also erred in denying the defense’s motion to impeach a witness during trial.

Justice Geoffrey Slaughter even asked Banks to explain Beasley’s second argument after the counsel for the state had finished contending the issue of a prejudicial jury. Banks responded there was no error in the court’s actions at trial.

Banks finished his argument by detailing the nature of the crime that Crossland was found to have committed. He said Crossland’s young son was not fed for 74 days, despite there being food in the house, and that she would beat him with a wooden piece broken off of a bed frame.