The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Jury Deadlocked in Porter Trial, Judge Orders Deliberations To Continue

The jury in the trial of Officer William Porter told Judge Barry Williams Tuesday afternoon they are deadlocked.

The jury came in around 3:30 p.m. Tuesday. Williams sent them back for more deliberations after re-reading some of the jury instructions. The jury did not say which of the four charges against Porter are at issue. The jury is not hung. If they were, that would be grounds for Williams to declare a mistrial.

Around 9:15 a.m. Tuesday defense attorney Gary Proctor made a request for a mistrial, and to move this trial out of Baltimore City.

Proctor told the judge his motion was based on the letter that Baltimore City schools CEO Gregory Thornton sent home to parents Monday, warning them of possible unrest. In the letter, Thornton said the school won’t tolerate any students leaving class to protest if Officer Porter is acquitted.



Anonymous said...

a bit of useless info: defense attorney Proctor is watching "You, Me & the Apocalypse" on his laptop in courtroom.

Anonymous said...

They won't leave the classrooms to "protest" unless someone tells them it's ok to go and have some fun. Like teachers and aides who sympathize with Dead Crackhead Freddie.

I'd be quite amused, if some enlightened educator "suggested" they go "protest" something like NAFTA, or nuclear arms proliferation, or arbitrary government manipulation of the raisin markets by mandatory crop confiscation. Give them a two or three word catchphrase, and they'll take to the streets like grinning howler apes on a meth-fueled banana binge.

But "spontaneously" losing personal control and spewing out of schools into the streets? Nope. Not without a catalyst, and the adult "anti-social agitators" are to blame.

Don't look for a wilding pack indulging in "undocumented shopping" on Mr. Porter's case, regardless of outcome.

He's black, and therefore another innocent caught up in the "white man's racist system". If he's found guilty, there will no doubt be "celebratory looting", but they'll quickly rally to defend him, as it was of course the white cops' fault.

They don't care much if he's convicted, probably don't mind if he walks. Because after all, the only ones they want convicted and imprisoned are the white cops.

Anonymous said...

526 your right useless.

Anonymous said...

“Compromise if you can do so without violence to your own moral judgement,” "Judge" Williams said.

Huh, what???

Compromise on a case that is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt!!!

I can not believe this came out of a "judge's" mouth. This is reprehensible and this fool has no business in a courtroom. Affirmative action at it's finest is on display here.

Anonymous said...

The "judge" told the hung jury to “Compromise if you can do so without violence to your own moral judgement".
Such a statement coming from a trial judge is shocking because “compromise verdicts” in criminal cases are anathema to American concepts of jurisprudence and due process.
Each juror is sworn to vote for a guilty verdict on a charge only if they honestly believe that each and every element of that charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If they do not so honestly believe this to be the case for a given charge, they are sworn to vote not guilty on that charge. Period.
This lies at the core of the legal mandate that the defendant has the presumption of innocence.

There is no proper room for compromise in such a judicial framework.

While it is true that criminal trial jurors do from time to time arrive at so-called compromise verdicts, such instances are considered defects in the judicial system, not legitimate outcomes.

If ever there were grounds for reversal of any conviction, this is it.

Anonymous said...

@5:54 Unbelievable. I can’t believe the defense didn’t immediately demand a mistrial and petition a higher court to force a mistrial.

Anonymous said...

Every jury instruction I’ve heard read in trial essentially forbids a “compromise verdict”. Even on stuff like damages in civil court.

The idea that this judge is suggesting one in a criminal matter is an outrage.

Steve said...

625, I totally agree.

Anonymous said...

The defense should be throwing a fit over the “compromise verdict” statements by the judge.

It’s certainly possible, given the room temperature IQ of most journalists, that not understanding the legal relevance of the word “compromise” in the context of a jury verdict the journalist who is reporting this (NBC) “paraphrased” what Williams said into something legally repulsive, when in fact his actual words were not.

That would certainly explain defense counsel not exploding in the court room.

Anonymous said...

Bet if it was little Freddie on the burner, a mistrial would have been declared immediately...

Anonymous said...

741 the fix was in the day he was charged for the seatbelt. Judge selection was key for the state. Commenting On anything that happens in the kangaroo court is just boring.

Anonymous said...

For the record the Zimmerman jury deliberated 16 1/2 hrs
Casey Anthony 10hrs 40mins

Anonymous said...

I really don't care either way as long as the stay over there.

Anonymous said...

928 were you at those court hearings also?

Anonymous said...

You forgot O.J. they deliberated a little over 3 hours I think.