Google Mistrial

The NY Times has an article about the mistrial in Judge Zloch's courtroom last week after jurors did internet research:

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.
Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, wasting eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.
“We were stunned,” said the defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he was on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”
It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

Anything judges can do to make sure jurors don't hop on the internet, or is this going to happen in every case?

"We should start from scratch, because justice hasn't been achieved.'

That was AFPD Brian Stekloff for Guillermo Zarabozo in the Joe Cool case asking for a new trial on all counts. He continued: "Everyone in this courtroom knows how this jury reached this inconsistent and irrational verdict: They didn't understand the law." AUSA Karen Gilbert responded: "This scenario is not one where the court should set the verdict aside. We live with it. That's the verdict."

Judge Huck took the matter under consideration and set trial for January on the hung counts. Judge Huck did note that the jury's verdict "raises on eyebrow."

(via Sun-Sentinel, AP, Herald)

Joe Cool jury hangs on first degree murder counts

That's a victory for the defense.

The jury did convict on 4 gun counts. The prosecution will be happy with some convictions after it looked like the jury would hang on everything yesterday, especially since the potential sentences on those counts are life.

Food for thought -- should Judge Huck order a new trial on all counts because the jury may have been confused on the gun counts based on its previous note and because it appears that the jurors compromised after the Allen charge? If the case has to be retried anyway, why not try the whole thing? What are your thoughts?

Hung?

The Joe Cool jury says it can't reach a verdict: "As a jury we feel stuck in the sand and no hope or expectation that we will be able to move to consensus one way or the other."

Judge Huck read them the Allen charge:

I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort
to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I have
a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so.
This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time,
effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the
prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be
left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would
only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to
believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or
more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.
Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the
same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that
the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more
conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that
more or clearer evidence could be produced.
If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a
conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your
doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective
impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a
majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the
rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether
you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to
convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an
honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the
evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence
in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.
You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to
establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have
your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may
require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.
I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your
deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of
course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously
given to you.

Hung

Bill Barzee just hung his second jury in a row, this time in the Iranian Night Vision Goggle case. Here's Vanessa Blum's Sun-Sentinel article.

Liberty City mistrial

The Liberty City jury hung for a second time today. Judge Lenard will have a hearing next Wednesday to find out if the government will proceed a third time and if so, when that trial will be rescheduled. Lots of coverage from all the regulars.

I will re-post my questions from an earlier entry:

Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?

Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....

What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.

The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...

I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.

My prediction is that despite all of the above, the case will be tried a third time.

Finally, I feel for Judge Lenard. Can you imagine having to sit through the same lengthy trial 3 times. Shoot me now!