« Notes from the jury | Main | The verdict is in »
The jury is still deliberating…
By JJ MacNab | April 9, 2008
Three more notes were passed to the judge yesterday.
- The radio excerpt on 1e is not the complete audio excerpt heard in the courtroom. May we please have the complete exhibit heard in the courtroom.
 - In Count II, the wording indicates that the Defendants are charged with conspiring with each other and other co-conspirators. Does this mean that we need to find either two or three of the Defendants guilty for any of the Defendants to be guilty?
- We would like to order dinner. Would it be possible to end deliberations at 7:00. Thank you.
Topics: Cirino Gonzalez, Daniel Riley, Jason Gerhard | 17 Comments »
April 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Well, it looks like they don’t plan on ending today.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Those notes are from yesterday, and they did indeed deliberate until 7 pm.
The legal definition of conspiracy is a pretty complex topic and it doesn’t sound like the jury understands it.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
oh right, I see that now. So, theoretically there could be a verdict today.
p.s. quatloos down today?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Q’s been down for a couple of hours. The powers that be have been alerted.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’m curious about the judge’s reply to the 2d note? Couldn’t there be a conspiracy between only one defendant (say DW) and an “other co-conspirator” (say Ed) which would therefore not require two or three of the Defendants?
April 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
The Judge’s response to Note #9:
The answer to your question is “No.” You need not find either two or three of the defendants guilty for any of the defendants to be guilty. You should still refer to the definition of a conspiracy as set forth in the instructions.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Thanks admin. That’s what I suspected would be the answer.
I miss my Q.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Note #9 (regarding the definition of conspiracy) is very interesting. I would say this bodes well for one of the defendants, maybe even two. Hmmm….
April 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Just got word there’s a partial verdict.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I have heard it is:
Danny – guilty on all counts
Jason – guilty on all but the explosives counts
Reno – Jury is still out.
I bet the jury is hung on the whole conspiracy count with him.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
No CKB I bet there is at least one if not more that don’t feel there is evidence there to convict him.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
We will find out tomorrow. If I had to bet, the jury will find him guilty on some, but not others – like any conspiracy and explosives charges. But that is a W.A.G.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Well there was a lot of confusion on some of the exhibits enteres not being correct. Now the jury is asking for video clips, hmmmmmm, which they have said are NOT the full versions they seen in court? I think they would like explanations of this before sentencing a man.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
That means they are doing their job and being thorough. Nothing wrong with that.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Some of this might be interesting reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
Also this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
April 10th, 2008 at 8:36 am
“Now the jury is asking for video clips, hmmmmmm, which they have said are NOT the full versions they seen in court? I think they would like explanations of this before sentencing a man.”
The jury saw and heard the clips in the courtroom multiple times in two forms, full and edited. What they received in the deliberation room was whatever version they heard last. There’s nothing suspicious for the jury to question.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:45 am
I am just stating it’s great they are being so thorough.It is a sign of hope.