After nearly 15 years as a judge in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, there aren’t many firsts left for Mark Serrott.
But on Thursday, Serrott granted a retrial for a man who was found guilty of murder by a jury in May.
Sentencing was scheduled for Thursday for LaRoy Robinson, 49, in the Dec. 2 murder of 46-year-old Malik Islam.
“In his 14 ½ years as a judge in hundreds of jury trials, this Court has never reversed a jury verdict,” Serrott wrote in his decision. “This case is the rare exception where justice requires a new trial.”
On May 31, a jury found Robinson not guilty of intentionally killing Islam, but found him guilty of killing Islam during the commission of aggravated assault, discharging a firearm in the vicinity of prohibited premises, and causing grievous bodily harm.
Evidence presented at Robinson’s trial revealed that at about 12:10 a.m. on Dec. 2, Robinson was sitting in a parked car in the 2000 block of Cornell Avenue on the city’s northeast side when Islam approached Robinson and became verbally aggressive toward him.
After a second verbal altercation, Robinson testified that he saw Islam reach into his pocket and pull out what he thought was a gun. Robinson fired a single shot that struck Islam and drove away from the scene.
Robinson had argued in court that he shot Islam in self-defense and that Islam had a reputation for being violent and dangerous, which several witnesses testified to during the trial.
Following the jury’s verdict, Robinson’s attorney, Touré McCord, filed a motion to dismiss the case or to set aside Serrott’s verdict and grant Robinson a new trial.
McCord’s main argument related to an instruction given to the jury before it began deliberations on whether Robinson was required to retreat before using deadly force.
Prosecutors had argued that the verdict should stand and that all issues in the case could be resolved on appeal after Robinson’s conviction.
More: Self-defense arguments are becoming increasingly popular and effective in Columbus murder trials
Serrott stated in his ruling that the instructions he gave to the jury were “the exact opposite of what the law requires.”
“The instructions likely misled the jury,” Serrott wrote in his ruling, adding in a footnote that at least four jurors asked him after the case whether Ohio had “stand your ground” laws.
“These jurors stated that they would never have voted guilty if they had known that the defendant was not required to flee or retreat,” Serrott wrote. “One juror was visibly upset and repeatedly contacted the court to change the verdict.”
Serott noted in his decision that granting someone a new trial before judgment is entered and the case is reviewed by an appeals court was an “extraordinary remedy,” but he believed it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
Serrott also ruled that the jury’s verdict was unlawful because the evidence did not clearly disprove Robinson’s claim that he acted in self-defense when he shot Islam.
“The erroneous instructions to the jury only reinforced and exacerbated the injustice of the verdicts,” Serrott wrote.
The hearing in Robinson’s case is scheduled for July 8. A new trial date has not yet been set.
