Judge Declares Mistrial in Case of Man Accused of Killing 5-Year-Old Niece After Jurors’ Secret Comments Derail Deliberations

A North Carolina murder trial took a dramatic turn when a judge declared a mistrial after discovering that jurors may have discussed information that was never presented in court. The case involves David Prevatte, 27, who is accused of killing and sexually assaulting his 5-year-old niece, Paitin Fields. After days of testimony and evidence, the jury had begun deliberating his fate. But what started as one juror’s report soon spiraled into a series of allegations that left the judge questioning whether the panel could continue fairly.

Prevatte has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and sexual offenses involving a child. According to testimony reported by Court TV, Paitin was found having a seizure on a couch in her family’s home and was rushed to the hospital. Medical personnel reportedly noticed signs of strangulation and evidence of sexual assault. The child later suffered catastrophic injuries and was declared brain-dead before being taken off life support. Prosecutors have presented evidence as they seek to establish what happened to the little girl, while the defense has challenged the accusations and argued that Prevatte is being unfairly targeted.

The courtroom crisis began Thursday morning, October 15, when Juror No. 2 alerted a bailiff that another juror had been making comments about Prevatte’s personal life and standing in the community. Among the remarks reportedly made by Juror No. 3 was that Prevatte was not a member of the Ku Klux Klan and had been marginalized by people around him. The issue immediately raised concerns because the KKK had never been mentioned during the trial. Jurors are required to base their decisions on evidence admitted in court—not private knowledge, personal assumptions or information obtained elsewhere.

As Judge Ricardo Jensen questioned jurors individually, the situation became more complicated. Several jurors reportedly confirmed hearing the comments, and Juror No. 3 allegedly suggested she knew things about the case that she could not disclose. She also reportedly argued that Prevatte could not be racist because he had a Black girlfriend with whom he shared a child. Prosecutor Jason Smith asked the judge to remove her from the panel, questioning whether she had answered jury-selection questions honestly or had ignored instructions to consider only the evidence presented in court.

But when Juror No. 3 returned to the courtroom, she raised allegations of her own. She claimed Juror No. 2 had also made comments about information that had not been introduced at trial, including a reference to Prevatte having a criminal record “longer than the table.” Another juror reported that Juror No. 3 had actually tried to stop Juror No. 2 from discussing inappropriate information. The judge then questioned more members of the panel, uncovering further claims that Juror No. 4 had described Prevatte as someone known to police. After questioning Juror No. 4, Jensen concluded that the juror had not been truthful.

With allegations multiplying, both sides faced a serious problem: could the remaining jurors still reach a verdict based solely on the evidence? Defense attorney Luther Johnson Britt III urged the court to declare a mistrial, comparing the unfolding situation to peeling an onion, with one troubling layer revealing another beneath it. Judge Jensen said the original report had “opened Pandora’s box.” He determined that at least seven jurors needed to be removed because of possible contamination, but there were not enough alternate jurors available to replace them.

The judge ultimately declared a mistrial, meaning the jury would not deliver a verdict and the case would need to proceed toward another trial. Jensen later admonished Jurors No. 2 and No. 4, telling them the mistrial resulted from misconduct, although he declined to hold them in contempt of court. Prevatte was scheduled to return on November 13 for a pretrial hearing. The ruling does not determine whether he is guilty or innocent; instead, it underscores how even a high-stakes case can be derailed when jurors appear to stray beyond the evidence. For Paitin’s family, the decision means the legal process surrounding the child’s death will continue, with another trial now expected to determine Prevatte’s fate.

Source: Court TV