71-year-old may get new murder, arson trial after Tri-Cities juror misconduct
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Appeals court judges find juror research on a bullet warrants new hearing.
- Defense argued prejudice is presumed when jurors consider outside evidence.
- Judge Swanberg found misconduct but wrongly required proof it affected the verdict.
A juror’s research into a bullet may lead to a new trial for a Kennewick man convicted of killing his wife and setting fire to their home.
Three appellate court judges sided with Brian L. Wilcox, 71, and said he should get another chance to ask a Tri-Cities judge to give him a new trial for murder and arson.
Wilcox is currently serving 23 years after he shot his wife, Kathy, in the back of the head on April 25, 2022. He then lit their Oak Street home on fire and fled to Oklahoma with $5,000 from their joint account.
Wilcox argued the shooting was an accident, and he intended to die by suicide in the fire.
Prosecutors say Wilcox told his son in a phone call that he “snapped” before the shooting.
Throughout the trial, jurors were told not to do any research on the case. That includes looking up information about any of the evidence presented at the trial.
However, the recent appeals court decision said a confused juror looked up information on a lunch break about the bullet used to kill Kathy Wilcox. It was hollow-point Hornaday Critical Defense round.
Juror 14 shared the information with other jurors before they decided Wilcox was guilty.
Juror 8 said he heard Juror 14 talking about doing research on the bullet and the claim of an accidental discharge.
“That other juror stated that it was helpful for himself to render a verdict in this case,” Juror 8 said in a written statement.
The jury came back with a guilty verdict, but when defense attorneys learned about the juror’s research, they wanted the verdict thrown out and a new trial.
Then-Judge Sam Swanberg ruled Juror 14 engaged in misconduct, but there wasn’t “a showing at this point in time that misconduct had a — any reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of this — the trial.”
Burden of proof
The appellate court said Swanberg’s decision said the defense needed to prove that the misconduct affected the verdict, but once the misconduct is proven, the prosecutor is required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn’t impact the trial.
A juror is supposed to get all the evidence about the case from the witnesses and exhibits at the trial. When they go to outside sources, it’s assumed that will impact the defendant negatively, unless prosecutors can show it won’t, the appeals court said.
Wilcox’s attorney argued the ruling placed the burden on the defense to show that the misconduct affected the verdict.
“Here, the issue is specific, and the law is well settled,” the appeals court decision said. “When a jury commits misconduct by considering extrinsic evidence, prejudice is presumed, and the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not prejudiced.”
While the appeals court ruled that there needed to be a new hearing about the misconduct, they stopped short of saying whether the verdict should be tossed out.
That decision will be left up to a Benton County Superior Court judge. A hearing has not been scheduled.
This story was originally published October 20, 2025 at 5:00 AM.