It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Freddie Gray case: Jurors say they're deadlocked
Baltimore (CNN)[Breaking news alert, posted at 3:45 p.m. ET Tuesday]
Jurors deliberating in the trial of Baltimore police Officer William Porter said Tuesday afternoon that they were deadlocked. The judge sent the jury back in and told them to continue deliberating.
The judge in the first trial related to the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray denied a new defense request for a mistrial Tuesday, as jurors began their second day of deliberations.
Defense attorneys for city police Officer William Porter -- the first of six officers to be tried in Gray's death from a neck injury sustained while in police custody -- moved for the mistria
The prosecution’s theory of the case is that Porter committed two acts of omission of a legal duty—failing to seatbelt Gray into the police van and failure to provide timely medical care—either or both of which created a substantial and unjustified risk of death to Gray.
The defense theory of the case with respect to the seatbelt issue is that the department’s seatbelt rule, enacted only days before Gray’s in-custody injury, was in effect a guidance subject to reasonable discretion, and that Porter was able to articulate a reasonable basis for not belting Gray in. Further, if any of the six officers on scene had responsibility for belting Gray in the van it was the driver, Officer Goodson.
The defense theory of the case with respect to the provision of medical care is that Porter provided timely medical care as soon as possible after Gray was injured and the time anyone could have been aware of that injury, which the defense claims occurred only after the last of the van’s penultimate stop (the 5th stop) prior to reaching its destination (the final 6th stop). Care could not have been provided at earlier stops for Gray’s neck injury, they claim, because the injury had not yet occurred.
There was no word on whether he also read them an Allen charge, named after the 1896 Supreme Court case in which they first approved the instruction (Allen v. United States, 164 US 492).
The Allen charge is a jury instruction used specifically in such circumstances in which the jury reports they cannot arrive at a unanimous verdict. It essentially reminds the jury of all the resources and time that have been put into this trial, notes that another jury is unlikely to be better suited to reaching a verdict than they are, and tells them to get their act together, get back into the jury room, and come back with a verdict, darn it!
abcnews.go.com...
"Compromise if you can do so without violence to your own moral judgement," Williams said.
originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
It appears the incompetant judge just told the jurors to cave in to peer pressure and vote guilty so we can all go home and lesson riots.
abcnews.go.com...
"Compromise if you can do so without violence to your own moral judgement," Williams said.
Compromise verdicts are not allowed.
UPDATE (4:01PM, 12/15/15): In a shocking statement, trial Judge William Barry told the hung jury to “Compromise if you can do so without violence to your own moral judgement,” according to reporting by ABC News.
Such a statement coming from a trial judge is shocking because “compromise verdicts” in criminal cases are anathema to American concepts of jurisprudence and due process. Each juror is sworn to vote for a guilty verdict on a charge only if they honestly believe that each and every element of that charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do not so honestly believe this to be the case for a given charge, they are sworn to vote not guilty on that charge. Period. This lies at the core of the legal mandate that the defendant has the presumption of innocence.
There is no proper room for compromise in such a judicial framework. While it is true that criminal trial jurors do from time to time arrive at so-called compromise verdicts, these cases are considered defects in the judicial system, not legitimate outcomes.
If ever there were grounds for reversal of any conviction, this is it.
legalinsurrection.com...