6:34am | A federal appeals court has overturned the murder conviction of a woman who was found guilty for the fatal shooting of a Long Beach liquor store owner in 1993 because the trial court “cut some corners” and violated her Sixth Amendment rights.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday in a 3-0 decision that Tara Sheneva Williams, who was 20 at the time of the incident, did not receive a fair trial because the judge overseeing the case interrogated a juror who was inclined to acquit Williams during deliberations and dismissed him despite objections from other jurors.

The dismissed juror was the lone member of the panel who was leaning toward acquittal.

Williams was driving when she and two friends went out looking for a store to rob one afternoon in October 1993. As they cased various stores, one of Williams’ friends exited the vehicle at a liquor store, robbed the clerk and shot him to death.

Williams was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of special circumstances murder and a firearms enhancement after the trial court dismissed the holdout juror and replaced him with an alternate.

According to Courthouse News Service, the 44-page decision contrasts interviews with jurors who deliberated Williams’ case to the fictional jury room debate in the 1957 Academy-Award winning film 12 Angry Men.

Justice Stephen Reinhardt, who authored the opinion, said it is reasonably possible that the trial court did not have good cause to remove Juror No. 6 because his removal may have stemmed directly or indirectly from the juror’s position on the merits of the case.

“The only good cause relied upon for dismissal of Juror No. 6 was ‘actual bias,'” Reinhardt wrote. “The court did not find, however, that Juror No. 6 was ‘biased’ in any traditional sense of the term, as would have been the case if, for example, he had stated that he could not be impartial or had accepted a bribe related to the case. Nor did it find that he had ‘implied bias,’ such as might have resulted from Juror No. 6 having a connection to one of the parties, or being related to someone who had either committed or been a victim of some similar crime.”

Also mentioned in the decision is that the record directly contradicts the court’s assertion that Juror No. 6 had lied in court.

Reinhardt concluded: “A hung jury is never a desirable outcome in a criminal trial. When a mistrial results, the interest shared by the state, the defendant, the court and the public in the efficient administration of justice is diminished. The sacrifice of efficiency for the preservation of liberty is central, however, to the safeguards the Constitution affords criminal defendants.

“Unfortunately, the trial court cut some corners here.”