The jury failed to reach a verdict for a second day Wednesday in the federal trial of David Kernell, who's accused of breaking into Sarah Palin's email account.
Jurors got the case about 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, and the judge dismissed them for the day around 4:40.
They spent Wednesday deliberating from 9:00 a.m. until around 4:15.
The jury isn't sequestered in this trial.
Almost fourteen hours later and still no verdict. I wonder if this is better for the defense or the prosecution?
Any guesses?
Sounds to me like these jurors have access to the media and newspapers and know the lies of Sarah Palin that were omitted during the trial.
ReplyDeleteI think I have heard the longer the deliberation goes, it is better for the defense. I certainly hope that is the case here.
ReplyDeleteI'd say the jury finds Kernell guilty of the misdemeanor but can't agree on the 3 felony charges. Do they have to have a verdict for all charges to avoid a hung jury?
ReplyDelete@Jane in Texas who said:
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like these jurors have access to the media and newspapers and know the lies of Sarah Palin that were omitted during the trial.
-Except the media has already forgiven Sarah and is not reporting any of her testimony as 'lies'.
Still with fingers crossed - OzMud
My guess is that there is a lot of grey area in the laws (or at least the interpretations the jury has been given), and that they will find him guilty of something, but they are debating which charge would be most appropriate for his actions.
ReplyDeleteWell, it clearly wasn't as open and shut as some media reported. Maybe Sarah winking at the jury was more unsettling than she bargained for.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that when they decide someone is not guilty, the verdict comes back fairly quickly.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there are people on the jury who live in Fox/Palin world where people believe she has been deeply harmed.
This is good, Gryphen. I'd like to see a hung jury. It only take one person to plant doubt about guilt, you know. Would love to be a fly on the wall. : )
ReplyDeleteThere are 4 charges and I bet they are hung on the hacking thing itself. He did not ACCESS a COMPUTER which is what they asked for clarification about. He did not access a harddrive, he had no access to any documents, just internet based email. The law may not have caught up to internet "cloud computing" and there may be a juror who uses computers a lot and knows a lot and would never use a lame password for a gov email account.
ReplyDeleteRemember that O'Keefe will be facing charges about the Acorn tape that resulted in demonstrable harm...not just ex-GINO's hurt feelings.
ReplyDeleteCould be that the delay is in the area of actual harm.
I don't think you can really guess, it would be like trying to read tea leaves, but I think what it tells us is the jury is taking their job seriously, it was not a "slam dunk" for the prosecution and Palin did not "own" the courtroom. Which, I think is probably good for Kernell. There are 4 charges. Consider each one as its own separate trial and jury determination. They might acquit on one or more, convict on one or more and fail to reach a verdict on one or more. He would be sentenced on those he was convicted and the prosecution would decide if they wanted to prosecute for any that the jury failed to reach a verdict.
ReplyDeleteI've served on 3 juries. The first took 4 days of deliberation and we finally convicted on the lowest of the 3 felony charges (voluntary manslaughter rather than first or second degree murder); the second took about a day and we convicted of the higher charge (could have gone misdemeanor or felony attempted burglary); third one we took a couple days and were hung on the misdemeanor charge of accepting stolen goods. On the last one we had 3 jurors that simply wouldn't budge. I think there are probably one or more holdouts that the majority can't convince -- but I don't have a feeling which way. Might end up being a hung jury, which would be awesome. Also, Sarah is so polarizing, she might have hurt the case. At least one out of 12 people must find her ignorant and annoying.
ReplyDeleteGryphen, I have been quite surprised that you have yet to comment on certain recent Babygate articles. What's the latest? Thank you for all that you do!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.palinpeytonplace.com/2-babies-yes-heres-proof.html
http://ozmud.wordpress.com/
http://palinbabygate.blogspot.com/
I think it's good.
ReplyDeleteIt tells the they're not all taken with Palin's brand of charisma. :)
Unlike Palin, the jury probably realizes how serious it is convicting a young man to 50 years in prison. At least they seem to be taking time to deliberate before making their decision!
ReplyDeleteIt is anyone's guess who it is better for. I sat on a jury where nine of the 12 people were dead set in favor of the plaintiff, the other three wore all but 2 of us down and because those seven didn't want to come back for another day and they changed their vote to side with the first three. They no longer cared a man's life was destroyed by the defendant they just wanted to go home and get back to work. Sad isn't it.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how long this kid's jury is out there is no way to know what way it will go.
"Could be that the delay is in the area of actual harm."
ReplyDeleteWhat harm? That is where the flagrant lies came in. Who knows what any jurors know about any of that. The jurors will be available for interviews when this is over.
I have no psychic abilities and no clue how the deliberation is going. I agree that it is a good sign that they are serious jurors.
No matter how this turns out, the ppl who lie on the witness stand are still liars. That is public and can be discussed at length. They do not need to be charged with perjury to discuss their public behaviors. Bristol can do what a liar does or she can defend what she said with her proof that her testimony was all true.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know that she will also warm up to ppl in Anchorage and Wasilla. You never hear of chance encounters when she is in Alaska.
Knoxville mom, daughter have chance encounter with Bristol Palin
“I actually didn't know who she was,” said Reese Freshour. “She just kind of grabbed my hand, pulled me close to her and shook my hand and said, ‘hi, I'm Bristol!"
Generally, the longer jury deliberations result in not guilty verdicts. But they could be held up on just one of the charges.
ReplyDeletePOST; Almost fourteen hours later and still no verdict. I wonder if this is better for the defense or the prosecution?
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: It's no guarantee (ask Scott Peterson), but generally speaking, the long deliberations go, the better it is for the defendant. It's emotionally easy to find someone "not guilty." It's more difficult (as it should be) to find someone guilty. That's an oversimplication.
I suspect the time to reach a decision has little to do with SP, and more to do with interpreting the law.
Maybe the jury is just as divided as the country when it comes to Palin. There are those who will defend her no matter what and others who wouldn't under any circumstances give her the time of day. If the jury is even remotely representative of the country, it'll be a hung jury because no one will give in.
ReplyDeleteFor this round it's better for the defense. The precept in the US is "innocent until proven guilty." The judge's instructions to the jury are detailed as to what constitutes proof as well as what can be discussed/admitted as evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis is an indication to me that there are jurors who remain unconvinced that the prosecution succeeded in making its case. Since the burden of proof rests on the prosecution I take it that there is still a lingering doubt.
I don't believe there is a correlation between length of jury deliberation and verdict. In this case, however, I can only see how this would be favorable to the defense. The kid essentially confessed to the crime. Taking this long to render a verdict - combined with the question asked by the jury - leads me to believe at least some of the jurors are unsure if some of the charges apply to this crime.
ReplyDelete"The law may not have caught up to internet "cloud computing" and there may be a juror who uses computers a lot and knows a lot and would never use a lame password for a gov email account."
Obviously, I wasn't there for jury selection, but generally in a case like this, the prosecution would reject any potential juror with any kind of advanced knowledge about computers or the internet. The defense may have done the same thing as well.
Attorneys generally prefer jurors who don't know anything. That way, they learn about the subject through cross-examination and expert testimony, instead of coming in with preconceived notions about the subject.
Maybe they've read what one of the witnesses said about the ginned up charges. If the prosecution's own witness says that some of the charges are BS, maybe the whole thing is and the prosecution is just looking to score political points off Palin being involved.
ReplyDeleteSince this jury is not sequestered, they can go and look at outside information and believe me they are doing it. It's just human nature to be curious about what you are involved with and there has been plenty said on both sides of the issue. I think that's why they are taking so long to reach a verdict.
As far as the jurors being available for comment, that is their choice. They have no obligation to reveal who they are or to explain themselves.
ReplyDelete"Since this jury is not sequestered, they can go and look at outside information and believe me they are doing it. "
ReplyDeleteThat's not true. Every jury is instructed not to watch or read any stories about the trial and to not do outside research. If a juror decides to do some outside research and bring it in to the jury room, the foreman is supposed to report it and the juror is dismissed. If you have ever been on a jury and read about the trial in the news or did "research" outside the jury room, you did something very wrong and should be ashamed.