Fentanyl Dealer Walks Free After Shocking Jury Error
A groundbreaking fentanyl conviction in Dallas County has been dramatically overturned after a higher court discovered the verdict was delivered by only 11 jurors, a direct violation of the Texas Constitution which mandates a 12-person jury for felony trials. The presiding judge described the oversight as a lapse that 'defies logic.'
A Verdict Built on a Flawed Foundation
In April, Richard Leal, 33, was convicted of manufacturing or delivering between four and 200 grams of the powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl. He was subsequently sentenced to 30 years in prison. However, the conviction has now been completely voided after an appeal revealed a stunning procedural failure.
The trial record contained no evidence that a twelfth juror was ever present. This fundamental error, which went unnoticed by the judge, bailiff, court reporter, and both legal teams throughout the entire trial, rendered the conviction illegitimate. Fifth Court of Appeals Justice Mike Lee expressed the court's astonishment, stating, 'The record demonstrates exactly that.'
The Arrest and Unravelling Case
Leal's legal troubles began in February 2023 when he was arrested during a routine traffic stop. Police discovered a trove of illegal items in his possession, including a firearm, crack cocaine, marijuana, 57 blue M-30 pills containing fentanyl, and methamphetamine tablets, according to the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.
During questioning, Leal reportedly told officers that the cocaine was for his personal use, while he distributed the pills and bricks 'as samples for his people.' His case was significant as it marked the first fentanyl dealing case to be tried and sentenced by a jury in Dallas County.
The District Attorney's office attempted to argue that since Leal's defence lawyer did not object to the jury size during selection, the defendant had forfeited his right to appeal on that ground. They claimed this inaction 'eliminated the court’s opportunity to remedy the issue.'
However, the appeals court firmly rejected this argument, stating the state's assertion was 'without merit.' The constitutional requirement for a 12-member jury was deemed so fundamental that the error could not be overlooked, regardless of the defence's initial silence on the matter.
