That is why I believe it is now in the hands of the jury fore person. He/she will control the deliberation. The fact that the jurors have requested and are individually absorbing the written instructions lends some credence to my outline. They are considering everything in incremental detail.
Likewise.
Is it a good sign if the jury takes a long time?
It’s probably no sign at all. The traditional view is quick tends to = conviction, long tends to = acquittal. But in a complicated capital case like this with multiple charges I think you can throw all of that out the window.
They are supposed to consider everything in incremental detail. The one thing they are not supposed to do is walk in the the jury room and say “Whataya think, guilty?” They have to go through each charge and deliberate guilt or innocence to each one. That’s the minimum.
Yeah not only is it a complicated case with multiple charges and possible downgrades, they are well aware of the spotlight on them.
Just a minor thought WRT the “crossing borders” discussion. No matter how close you might live to the WI border, IME most Illinoisans have always been aware of the significance of going from state to state. Back in my youth, WI had a younger drinking age. There was always the suspicion that WI cops were on the lookout for folk w/ IL plates. Heck, even today you have to cross the border to buy New Glarus beer.
So no, you don’t need shots or a visa, but there is SOME significance in SOME respects to crossing state lines.
Bolding mine.
Good to know. The media has distorted things a bit methinks.
I think part of the emphasis being placed on crossing state lines, apart from taking it as short hand that he traveled far to get to Kenosha (except he really didn’t), is that people are accustomed to seeing “across state lines” or “crossing state lines” mentioned in the context of federal cases, as if that is something that makes an infamous crime more serious, when the reality is that is just a hook that the federal government has included into a law to give it jurisdiction where it otherwise wouldn’t.
Someone walked down to the corner store in Tulsa, Oklahoma and killed a man in cold blood? Meh, it’s only murder.
But, oh gosh, man does the same thing in Texarkana, and the "corner store’ is on the other side of the state line! Oh my! We’ve got ourselves a veritable federal case here. And everyone knows a “federal case” is a big deal…
Which, as an aside, I’m curious as to whether there could be federal charges in this case, if the DOJ tries hard enough and thinks creatively.
What matters most is his conduct in front of the jury. They didn’t see him browbeat the prosecutor. It’s still possible he can call a mistrial. There are valid grounds for him to consider it. I won’t claim to be an expert and say if he should or not. If he does I’m sure everyone on one “side” will say he was biased. There are definite grounds for an appeal if he doesn’t declare a mistrial.
The two things he blew up at the prosecutors are fairly textbook mistrials grounds.
That’s how I saw it as well. It’s hard to believe it wasn’t done on purpose.
I’d say 5 days minimum
My WAG is three. If they reach a consensus on Rosenbaum I think the other counts will go a lot quicker.
That’s possible, but considerably longer then I would expect unless they get hung up on something. 2 to 4 days for a case of this complexity is more common.
The interesting thing is you have different gradients of the same issues as you go through the cases. As they apply the instructions sequentially to each case, they may see completed issues in a different light and have to start over.
I wonder about the mindset of the jurors. Do they really consider each charge and weigh the evidence against that? Or do they approach a more “results oriented” approach, thinking, for example, “Well, he did SOMETHING wrong, and ought to have SOME penalty. Which combination of charges would result in what I consider an appropriate penalty?”
That’s why the fore person is key. Like the Mods on this board. I suspect the debate is being focused on the instructions of the judge.
A couple of “results oriented” rants will convince the jurors they need to follow their leader if they ever expect to complete the task and go home.
It’s not a capital case.
I’m sure every jury is different, but when I was on a jury in a complicated civil case, the vast majority of us were extremely conscientious. There was one guy who wanted to just figure out what to say to let us get home the fastest, but everyone else said no, we’re working through this bit by bit.
Oh, true. No death penalty in Wisconsin.