Freddie Gray case: Jurors say they're deadlocked; judge tells them to keep deliberating

a reply to: KawRider9

"pants up, don't loot".

priceless. two thumbs up and a star.

You don't say something like that unless you WANT them to compromise.

It means they want a guilty verdict because it's the 'moral' call because the state didn't make it's case.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Grounds for appeal already existed due to all the motions that had been denied for venue change, mistrial, and dismissal. Which was picked up on hours ago when the motions were denied.

Add it to the list.

At the bottom.

a reply to: Shamrock6
Can the judge tell them to keep deliberating even though it is deadlocked? Does he have to call it? Just wondering.

Jury has been dismissed for the day, deliberations continue tomorrow.

Love all the people hoping for the looting!

Real positive contributions and in no way divisive.

I get that the possibility is a real one, but I can't help but get the idea that you all are hoping they actually do.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

It's not at all uncommon for a judge to tell a jury to go back and try again after they first report a deadlock. The judge has some degree of discretion as to how long to keep them at it. A jury is supposed to have "adequate" time to deliberate.

a reply to: Shamrock6
Thank You!

a reply to: Sremmos80

No one is hoping for it.

But after every verdict that has been given it' what happens.

Because the mob doesn't like the answer they get.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The way they are setting the city up, I honestly don't think there is much hope we escape this without something happening. Verdict aside.

It's just the psychological set-up.

a reply to: neo96

I disagree, but that is just my assumption and that may be wrong.

What I hope is that protests don't get met with SWAT teams like we have been seeing.

a reply to: Sremmos80

There's a difference between riot gear and actual SWAT teams.

Point of fact, there's a demonstration (maybe BLM, conflicting reports) in Philly right now that is going along rather peacefully so far.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

It's not at all uncommon for a judge to tell a jury to go back and try again after they first report a deadlock. The judge has some degree of discretion as to how long to keep them at it. A jury is supposed to have "adequate" time to deliberate.

That's a bit singular a statement, given that you already said in an earlier reply to me that the jury had requested review, and granted same of given evidence, which is only right and proper, and seems like this jury is trying to do the job, but that's the only comment I can make on that, other than they did indeed request more clarification.
It also seems the judge did ask for compromise, that's something no judge should ever ask against someone's personal opinion of the given evidence.

a reply to: smurfy

Not really singular at all. The question was asked whether a judge can tell a jury to continue deliberations after being informed the jury is deadlocked.

Which is what my answer pertains to, and nothing more.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Love all the people hoping for the looting!

Real positive contributions and in no way divisive.

I get that the possibility is a real one, but I can't help but get the idea that you all are hoping they actually do.

I don't see anyone hoping, I see people simply admitting these people are looking for an excuse to riot and loot and we have seen it so many times before it's the predictable outcome.

i think no matter the outcome there will be riots, if anyone is charged it will be driver who was responsible for the occupants.

I believe he threw himself around in the vehicle and accidentally injured himself fatally (trying to collect from the city) none of these officers should be charged and Rollings-Blake whatever Her name should be fired.

originally posted by: Tsubaki
Im sorry but what the hell is there for them to deliberate on?

That's the problem. There is nothing to actually convict the guy on, but they run the risk of idiots burning my city down if they come back not guilty.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Fair enough, I will admit it was a bit of an exaggeration.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yea well, I spoke to soon it seems. The protestors entered restaurants and retail stores and started yelling at patrons, it appears.

Ah well.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Any updates on the jury?