It was from the time immediately before mistrial was declared.
Can you give a cite for that?
Here’s the timeline (source: http://trib.com/news/national/the-latest-majority-of-jurors-undecided-in-slager-trial/article_5ba4df65-8c3e-5cfb-8de7-81024a6ef8b1.html )
"10:45 a.m.
A majority of the jurors in the Michael Slager murder trial in South Carolina are undecided about a verdict in the case. The jury provided the court a note to that effect on Monday morning.
3:40 p.m.
A mistrial has been declared in the trial of a South Carolina police officer charged with murder in the death of a black motorist."
Can you show me some source that shows that, between 10:45am and 3:40pm on Monday, there was another note from the jury that said only one juror was objecting?
Click the link in the OP. It claims there was only one holdout juror.
As news sources seem to conflict here, I speculate that thee was one hold out, the jury reported they could not reach a majority, thinking that that was synonymous with unanimity. It doesn’t actually make any sense that they couldn’t reach a majority, as that would mean an exactly 50/50 split, which wouldn’t make any sense with the rest of the context.
No, that was the situation on Friday. As in:
“On Friday, it appeared that the stalemate involved only one juror. But Monday’s note said that a majority of the jurors on the panel of 11 whites and one black were still undecided.”
As explored elsewhere, jury decisions there must be unanimous.
I don’t like that kind of “glitch”. Anyone with any sense of justice at all has a problem with it.
Yes, I explored that in a previous post, and even in the post that you replied to in the section that you removed when you quoted me. In this case, by definition, the decision was not unanimous. Hence, the hung jury that could not make a unanimous decision.
I am discussing how that situation came to be.
The link in the OP does not say that, and that was what I was going with. A googling of news article finds many ways of wording it, but at this point, I hold to there being one holdout, given the information currently presented.
The options that I see are:
A: One hold-out, the jury reports they could not come to a “majority” decision. In this case they are incorrectly synonymizing "majority with “unanimity” in their note to the judge.
B: A split decision. If they cannot come to a majority decision, (50%+1), that means that they are at 6 for, 6 against. Possible, but a huge swing over the weekend, and not really in keeping with the context of the rest of the timeline.
C: 7 Jurors cannot make up their minds whether to vote guilty or not guilty. This would be the most literal interpretation of the note, in that “A majority are undecided.” Once again, I find this scenario unlikely given the rest of the information presented at this time.
I think A is the most likely scenario given the information currently at hand.
Do you have reason to believe that it is a different scenario?
Yes. When the note says “a majority are undecided” it takes some significant tortuous mental twisting (and wishful thinking) to interpret it as “there was only one holdout”.
Okay, then what scenario are you talking about?
The only way to take it without some interpretation of the note is that there wree 7 jurors that just couldn’t decide whether to vote guilty or not guilty.
Is that what you are saying?
If not, what?
Pick one: A, B, or C, or come up with a different scenario.
Yes. That’s what “majority” means. They said that a majority was undecided. You refuse to take them at their word. Were you in the jury room?
So, you are saying C. 7 jurors were unable to make up their minds whether to vote for a guilty or not guilty plea.
I can see how that follows from the literal interpretation of the note that was given to the judge in the morning, I just think it unlikely that that is what they actually meant.
The one that was read in the court when the mistrial was declared said, “We as the jury regret to inform the court that despite the best efforts of all members, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision,”
This did not say that 6 jurors suddenly went from being in favor of conviction on Friday to not being able to make up their minds one way or the other on Monday.
So, your contention is that a note given in the morning that doesn’t make any sense at all overrides the note that was given to the judge to read later when the mistrial was declared. I think it is the other way around, where the later note clarifies the first.
I think that your wishful thinking is making you assume that you know better than the jurors what they meant in the clear language of the note (which the later statement in no way contradicts).
It is indeed a mistrial, and there’s every reason to force the trial to happen again.
That said, if he does wind up not convicted, this is absolutely horrible–for the police.
If something this blatant can’t get the system to actually do something about it, then any trust that these people have in the system will crumble.
Every single time a cop gets away with this stuff, it already makes every other cop’s job harder. But, eventually, if this doesn’t stop, the result will just be to take justice into their own hands.
I don’t want a cop massacre. Convict the guilty. Stop going out of your way to make it hard to convict them. Make sure you charge for what you can get a conviction on.
And, then, cops need to make a big showing of clearing out the swamp of the cops that do bad things. They need to take a lesson from the Catholic Church of all people, which started specific investigations into pedophilia.
And, then, stop getting mad at protesters. The last thing you should ever do is get mad at them. It’s like Trump getting mad about Saturday Night Live. It only makes you look bad. Hell, join in the protests, to show you are part of the solution and not part of the problem.
What is your issue with repeating “wishful thinking” over and over? That line was incorrect the first time you used it, and it is only getting more incorrect and more annoying. I have no vested interest in this case. It was only a small comment that I made, indicating that if there was a single holdout, a retrial made sense, if it was a 50/50 split, then it didn’t make sense to go through a retrial. You made some comment that I still don’t know how to parse. I guess at that time you were already of the opinion that 7 jurors couldn’t make up their mind. (Not they couldn’t agree, but literally, 7 jurors said “I can’t vote guilty or not guilty.”)
It is not “wishful thinking”, to think that there was only one holdout, it is the most clear reading of the way things turned out. If it turns out that there were 2 or even 3 jurors who ended up changing their minds from guilty to not, that’s not that weird, and while I don’t think it is the most probable, it is not nearly as unlikely as your scenarios where 7 people just lose the ability to choose one way or the other over the weekend. If that hold-out had caved on friday, then there would have been a guilty verdict. Or does the note that the foremen sent on friday not have any relevance to you?
It is your wishful thinking that 7 jurors changed their mind from guilty to “Oh, I don’t know…” over the weekend.
I did not say that the later statement contradicts the first, I said it clarifies. Those are two different words.
Wishful thinking would be that there is a retrial. Oh wait, there is one planned, not wishful thinking at all, just observation.
People seem to be ignoring the possibility that there was one juror who insisted they couldn’t vote to convict of anything, which is consistent with the note from the jury foreman prior to Friday, while among the other 11 there was disagreement over whether or not the evidence suggested Slager was guilty of voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder. Those are two different statutes with different levels of evidence required to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
I suspect this was the was case, though until(if) any of the jurors speak publicly we can’t know for certain.
If they couldn’t agree on second degree or manslaughter, then they would have gone with manslaughter. Anyone who would vote for second degree would be voting for manslaughter as well, so I don’t think it would have been a split between those who wanted him convicted of one, and others who wanted conviction on the other, they would have settled on the lesser charge.
It’s not “wishful thinking”. It is what they said, clearly, in their note.
But if you prefer to think otherwise - your prerogative.
But, how do you really feel about it?
The jury foreman was on the Today show yesterday, he said 5 jurors were “undecided”, and one would never vote to convict. link.
P.S. It utterly sucks that the juror feels he needs to have a lawyer with him before he appears on TV.
I reiterate: black lives do not matter.