BNN had two news flashes (3:47, 3:53 PM ET) which said that the jurors have passed a note to the judge saying that they have been unable to reach a verdict on all the charges. There's no agreement for any of them. They asked the judge for "clarification" of the instructions on p. 75 that deal with the procedure to reach a unanimous verdict. The lawyers are meeting, but there are no details of this special meeting as of yet.
On CTV NewsNet, reporter Rosemary Thompson said that there's a suggestion that the charges on which the jury is hopelessly deadlocked should be dropped, leaving them to decide on the others. Paula Todd says that this is a "textbook" decision. Judge will make the decision "by the book." Judge St. Eve, as of 4:02 PM ET, is calling the jury in. Ms. Todd said that the normal procedure is to send the jury back at least once: this practice often focuses the jury and facilitates a verdict. This would require a reinstruction, Ms. Todd believes.
At about 4:05-07 PM, Ms. Thompson reported that the jurors are deadlocked on some but have reached unanimity on some others. The prosecution wants to make sure a verdict is not quasi-coerced.
Judge St. Eve has sent the jury back in. There is no word as of yet on the charges the jury has agreed upon, nor whether or not they were re-instructed.
At about 4:10 PM, Steve Skurka was on. He said that this deadlock is the first evidence of the jury's thought. They were instructed to "not surrender your honest belief" while sent back to try again. The jurors didn't disclose the specific charges they were deadlocked on.
The defense wanted to rush things: they looked for partial verdict. The prosecutors "collectively looked very concerned." The jurors looked exhausted. The judge re-read the same instruction, and the jury said that it was already understood. Judge St. Eve said in reply that she may send them back only once more before declaring a mistrial. Ms. Todd was not as confident as the defense, and Csr. Skurka himself, regarding the defense chances.
There are also webbed news reports on the deadlocked jury. Paul Waldie's, webbed by the Globe and Mail, contains a quote from the jury's note: "'We have discussed and deliberated on all the evidence and we are still [unable] to reach a unanimous verdict on one or more counts.'" An Associated Press report, webbed by the International Herald Tribune, quotes a P.S. in the note: "We have read the jury instructions very carefully.'" CTV News itself has webbed a report on it.
As of 4:35 PM ET, or 3:35 PM CT, the jury is back in the deliberation room, according to Ms. Thompson. According to another note from the jury, [Mark Steyn has confirmed,] the jurors wants to deliver a partial verdict, and the judge wants them to sleep on it. There's no further news as of this time. Ms. Todd has speculated that Judge St. Eve is reviewing applicable procedure very carefully so as to avoid an appeal on any relevant grounds.
Ms. Thompson had a guest, Terry Sullivan, who said that the prosecutors are gone now, but Conrad Black and the other defendants are waiting in the courtroom. He said that the "one or more" part of the note is considered unusual; it's not a standard phrase used in notes of this kind. He also said that the defense would want a partial verdict because it would remove the defendants' uncertainty about the verdict in full. He refused to predict what the verdict will be.
A report by Bloomberg, by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, has also been webbed. It quotes Judge St. Eve's response to the note: "'I will not accept a partial verdict at this time.''' It also reports that, "[s]hould jurors remain deadlocked on some of the counts, St. Eve may give them a so- called Allen charge, informing them that it's their duty to reach a verdict if they can." [An updated version of the same report has a quote from Hugh Totten, who gave 50-50 odds on a partial verdict.]
On BNN, Amanda Lang had an update on the Rule 29 and associated motions from the defendants with Stephen Komie, an attorney, as of about 5:05 PM ET. If Judge St. Eve acquits any of them on that basis, in the face of a jury decision of guilty on any charge for a defendant acquitted by motion, then the prosecution will have grounds for appeal.
Reuters has a report, by Andrew Stern and a couple of others, which contains the above details, and adds an additional one: before sending the jury back, "she told those in the courtroom [out of earshot of the jury] that she has in the past sent juries back to continue talking two or three times before making a decision." It also quotes Mark Kipnis' attorney, Ron Safer, telling the court: "'from their note they've clearly been at this state for some time and it is our opinion that we accept this (partial verdict).'"
Ms. Thompson has reported, at 5:34 PM ET (4:34 PM CT), that another note has been delivered to the judge from the jury. The note said that the jury will deliberate at the regular time tomorrow: 9 AM to 4:45 PM CT. Right after her update, CTV NewsNet host Dan Matheson interviewed Jacob Frenkel, who explained that the prosecutors don't want a partial verdict because the jurors might be confused, or prejudiced, by the part they have already announced when they resume deliberations on the remaining charges. Later, Ms. Todd speculated that the jurors will most likely reach a final verdict tomorrow. She also reported at 5:50 PM ET that Peter Atkinson had just left the courtroom, suggesting that the jury has finished for the day. After she was finished, Mr. Matheson commented that Judge St. Eve may accept a partial verdict tomorrow. Conrad Black left the courtroom at 5:58 PM ET without comment.
KGAN.com has webbed an AP summary report that gives the highlights of the above events. Canada.com has webbed a full, updated version of the Reuters report, which adds background to the afternoon's events (but doesn't mention the forfeiture hearing this morning.)
A more detailed AP report, webbed by the Spokesman Review, carries a quote from Csr. Safer, to the effect that the judge should just accept a hung jury. It also says that "Lead prosecutor Eric Sussman told St. Eve that the government put the actual time of deliberations at only about seven full days and urged that the jurors continue trying to reach a verdict. He also raised the possibility of giving the jurors the option of returning a partial verdict... The judge told the attorneys the jury has paid 'incredible attention' throughout the trial. 'I do think there is some benefit to bringing the jury back into the courtroom and reinstructing them,' she said before calling the jurors to appear before her."
A CBC News report on the day's events ends with quotes from three legal experts. The first two noted that deadlock isn't uncommon in cases of this size and complexity, and the third, James Morton, said that the verdict could be announced as early as tomorrow. (As noted above, he isn't the only one forecasting a Wednesday verdict.)
----------
Mark Steyn has a running commentary on the deadlocked jury in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, with his speculations added. The two entries between 5 to 6 PM ET contain straight reports.
Another regular trial watcher, Douglas Bell, has posted an entry on the same story in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog. That entry, entitled "A Cry For Help," will be expanded as more news comes in.
If you want a copy of the jury instructions, they're in this PDF file. Instruction #75, quoted below, is:
The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. Your verdict, whether it be guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous.
You should make every reasonable effort to reach a verdict. In doing so, you should consult with one another, express your own views, and listen to the opinions of your fellow jurors. Discuss your differences with an open mind. Do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if you come to believe it is wrong. But you should not surrender your honest beliefs about the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinions of your fellow jurors or for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict.
The twelve of you should give fair and equal consideration to all the evidence and deliberate with the goal of reaching an agreement which is consistent with the individual judgment of each juror.
You are impartial judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to determine whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment