Evidently the defense asked that deliberations continue with 11 jurors instead of requesting an alternate #12. The lawyers/pundits at The Corner had this to say:
Fitzgerald argued in favor of adding an alternate to the jury, so that 12 could deliberate. That would mean that deliberations would have to start anew. Wells had argued that that would mean that two and a half days of deliberations would be thrown away. Judge Walton just ruled that deliberations will go forward with 11 jurors. If something happens to another juror, then there are two alternates who can be added, although that will mean going back to square one in the deliberations.
Defense lawyers virtually always move for a mistrial when a juror has to be stricken during deliberations. Reason is obvious: Jury must be unanimous to convict, and it’s tougher for the prosecutor to convince 12 people than 11. Almost always, these mistrial motions are denied. Federal rules allow the judge to accept a verdict from 11 jurors regardless of whether the parties agree. (If it gets under 11, that’s a different story.)
Byron seems to be saying Ted Wells, far from objecting, actually asked for the deliberations to continue with 11 jurors. That is a sign that the defense is very confident and obviously likes this jury.
The government is virtually always very happy to go with 11 jurors rather than 12. Eleven are easier to convince; plus, anything new you add to the deliberation mix is destabilizing, and the government generally wants stability and good order, not chaos.
Thus, the fact that Pat Fitzgerald would rather add a juror than go with 11 is puzzling. Either there must be something about the first alternate that the government thinks would be unusually good for the prosecution, or there is some strange jury dynamic afoot — which would be impossible to assess without being in the courtroom and getting a look at what’s going on in there.
It did appear this morning that the defense seemed a bit more upbeat — just body language and facial expressions — than did the prosecution. On the other hand, there’s a lot of buzz about the juror who was dismissed. She was the former art curator who declined to wear a T-shirt with the rest of the jury on Valentine’s Day. At the time, there was speculation that perhaps she was a dissenter, and her presence was dividing the jury, which would be good news for a defense team hoping for a hung jury if it couldn’t get an acquittal. In that scenario, her removal could conceivably be bad news for the defense. On the other hand, I thought that as an art curator, she probably refused to put on the red T-shirt for purely aesthetic reasons. In any event, she’s gone. Does that mean a divisive factor has been removed, or that there are other problems? You got me.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:34:36 am
Conspiracy theorist meltdown in 3 . . . 2 . . .
February 26th, 2007 at 11:55:57 am
Evidently the defense asked that deliberations continue with 11 jurors instead of requesting an alternate #12. The lawyers/pundits at The Corner had this to say: