At the end of its eighth day of deliberations, the foreman of the 11-member jury sent U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton a two-sentence note. "We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,' " the note said. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?"
The question asks whether the government must prove a negative, which answers itself: No.
Gazing into my crystal ball, I would say this question means there is at least one holdout for acquittal on the jury, with a majority trying to address the holdout's or holdouts' issues. After eight days of deliberation, there is no way things haven't jelled into camps, so questions are probably going to be aimed at resolving a disagreement. The weird framing of the question makes it read to me this way, "Will you please tell our stubborn colleague(s) that we're permitted to use common sense? Because otherwise, we'll never leave."
Based on that, after the judge answers the question on Monday, we're less than a deliberation day away from either a verdict or the first note declaring the jury can't reach a verdict. That's because the holdout(s) will either capitulate or really dig in their heels depending on what the judge says and the emotional dynamics in the jury room.
Comments