Trial has many twists before guilty verdict read
Jun. 9—LIMA — Jurors in the trial of a Lima woman facing drug and weapons charges reached their verdict fairly swiftly. There were a few bumps in the road before that verdict was ultimately announced.
After deliberating for less than 90 minutes on Tuesday, jurors in the trial of Daysha Lane announced they had reached a verdict. A new wrinkle presented itself, however, when it was reported that one of the 12 jurors might be a shirttail relative of the defendant.
That information was gleaned from a phone call made by Lane to an inmate at the Allen County jail Thursday afternoon, after the jurors had begun their deliberations.
On that call, according to Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Rebecca King-Newman, Lane told the inmate that one of her jurors "practically raised me." It was a statement that ultimately proved to be inaccurate, the defendant later admitted.
The new information nonetheless left attorneys at a loss over how to proceed. King-Newman said she had never in her career experienced a similar situation. She asked that the juror in question be replaced with an alternate and that deliberations begin anew.
Defense Attorney Steve Chamberlain asked that a mistrial be declared.
After a recess to research case law, Judge Terri Kohlrieser did not rule in either attorney's favor. Instead she said that, based upon answers to her questions furnished by the suspect juror and her belief that the juror was an impartial participant, that the verdict already reached by the 12 panelists would stand.
That verdict consisted of findings of guilt against the Lima woman who was charged with possession of cocaine, a first-degree felony with specifications for the use of a firearm and the forfeiture of that weapon and cash, and possession of heroin, a felony of the fourth degree that included identical specifications.
Lane, 24, was arrested after the execution of a search warrant by the West Central Ohio Crime Task Force on Oct. 2, 2019, at her residence at 949 Leland Avenue in Lima turned up more than 80 grams of cocaine — more than the 27 grams needed to elevate the offense to a first-degree felony — and 2.88 grams of heroin. A firearm was also found under a mattress inside the home.
In testimony Tuesday morning Deana Lauck, a member of the Lima Police Department and the lead investigator for the task force, admitted Lane was not the target of a SWAT team raid on a Leland Avenue residence. That target instead was a man who would later become the primary suspect in a triple homicide at Levels Lounge in downtown Lima.
Lauck said a confidential informant working for the task force had executed a controlled drug buy earlier on Oct. 2, 2019, at the Leland Avenue residence and had purchased drugs from Deontray Forrest.
It was Forrest whom Lane called after the jury had begun its deliberations. He is currently being held in the Allen County jail on a charge of murder in connection with a triple homicide on the morning of Feb. 4, 2020, at Levels Lounge in downtown Lima.
In his closing arguments to jurors, Chamberlain said his client was not without some blame for the drugs found in her home, but added that Forrest is the real drug dealer.
"For me to say Daysha Lane knew nothing about Deontray Forrest dealing drugs would be ridiculous," the defense attorney said. "You could even say she is responsible for the 2.88 grams of heroin and for 1.92 grams of cocaine that were found on the kitchen counter."
Chamberlain, however, alleged that his client was unaware of more an additional 80 grams of cocaine hidden in an end table and the $5,000 found inside a Cheeto's bag on top of her refrigerator. He referenced a call from the Allen County jail between Lane and Forrest to back up his claim. In that call Lane is heard asking of Forrest, "That (stuff) was there?"
"You can't aid and abet what you don't know," Chamberlain said. "The weight of the cocaine is something the state had to prove and they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Daysha Lane was in control of 82 grams of coke."
Jurors ultimately rejected that line of reasoning.
