## Facts

- Brian Scott Long was tried and convicted of two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation and one count of sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority involving his former step-daughter.
- The charged conduct allegedly occurred over multiple years in Duval County and was reported years after the alleged events.
- On the morning trial was to begin, seated jurors were in close proximity in a courthouse hallway to men wearing leather jackets stating “Bikers Against Child Abuse.”
- The prosecutor represented that the group supported the victim and had been told not to wear identifying items in the courtroom.
- Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing the group’s visible advocacy created prejudice.
- The trial court questioned four exposed jurors; no juror reported conversation with the bikers, and jurors stated they could remain impartial, though one juror was excused after giving an equivocal answer.
- The trial court denied a mistrial, ordered the bikers not to wear the jackets in the courtroom, and instructed them not to gather near jurors during breaks; members continued to attend trial without the identifying items in the courtroom.
- After conviction, Long moved for a new trial on the same ground; the trial court denied the motion, stating it was confident the jury was not affected and expressing doubt about its authority to exclude spectators.

## Issues

1. Whether visible, coordinated “Bikers Against Child Abuse” advocacy in close proximity to jurors created inherent prejudice or an unacceptable risk that impermissible factors influenced the jury.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial and a new trial based on that prejudice.

## Decision

- The First District Court of Appeal reversed the convictions, vacated the sentences, and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the circumstances were inherently prejudicial and created an unacceptable risk that impermissible factors affected the jury.
- The court concluded the trial court erred in denying both the mistrial and the post-verdict motion for new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A courtroom or courthouse practice is inherently prejudicial when it presents an unacceptable risk that impermissible factors will influence jurors, even absent proof of actual prejudice.
- Coordinated spectator displays or apparel that convey an advocacy message closely tied to the alleged crime can function as an extrajudicial signal about guilt and may be inherently prejudicial.
- Juror assurances of impartiality are not necessarily sufficient to cure inherent prejudice because the doctrine focuses on objective risk to a fair trial.
- Trial courts have authority and responsibility to regulate spectator conduct, clothing, and proximity to jurors to protect the defendant’s right to an impartial jury while preserving public access where consistent with fairness.

## Conclusion

Because coordinated “Bikers Against Child Abuse” advocacy near seated jurors created inherent prejudice and an unacceptable risk of improper influence, the appellate court reversed Long’s convictions and ordered a new trial despite juror statements that they could remain impartial.


Long v. State, 151 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)