Bill Cosby Jury Says They Are Deadlocked

Bill Cosby's jury told the judge today they are deadlocked. He told them to keep deliberating, and gave the Allen (dynamite) charge.

I just heard a recap from CNN's reporter and I can certainly understand why the jury hung. From CNN (no link due to autoplay video):

The jury -- which has deliberated for about 31 hours in all -- is made up of four white women, six white men, one black woman and one black man. They were bused in from Allegheny County near Pittsburgh and have been sequestered in a hotel for the trial.

< Jeff Sessions Testimony | Mueller Reportedly Investigating Donald Trump >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I told you before the trial started (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 06:25:12 PM EST
    how good the defense team was. This mistrial is a win for the defense, if the jury does not succumb to the Allen charge. Often a hung jury leads to a retrial, but I'm not so sure the prosecution would attempt a retrial here.

    Yes, you did! (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 06:32:18 PM EST
    Kind of surprising defense didn't put on an expert re effects of Benadryl dosage given the charges.

    How do you think that such testimony (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    would have benefited the defense? What would an expert have said about that? Would it have contradicted Constad's testimony without making Cosby look worse? Or what?

    I'm assuming the state's expert testfied (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 10:55:41 PM EST
    the amount of Benadryl Cosby said he gave the woman could have made her unconscious or unable to communicate with Cosby. She apparently testified she was "frozen."  

    State's called forensic toxicologist: (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 11:02:39 PM EST
    Cosby's wife takes shots at prosecutors (none / 0) (#27)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    Since you know them I'm curious of your take...

    How do I describe the district attorney? Heinously and exploitively ambitious.

    How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant, collaborating with the district attorney.

    How do I describe the counsels for the accusers? Totally unethical.

    How do I describe many, but not all, general media? Blatantly vicious entities that continually disseminated intentional omissions of truth for the primary purpose of greedily selling sensationalism at the expense of a human life.

    I'm very glad for Bill Cosby (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    to see that his wife still supports him -- and maybe even still loves him -- after all these years, and after all that he has done to show he doesn't deserve it. That's my take on her statement. Thanks for asking.

    Pretty unusual to move the jurors (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    to a different venue AND sequester them. Above and beyond the call of civic duty.

    I think that should be done in all (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    high profile cases.  

    Pretty costly. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    True but how else (none / 0) (#4)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 04:20:49 PM EST
    but how else can you shield jurors from public opinion?

    Court's instructions to (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 15, 2017 at 04:32:04 PM EST
    jury panel and request reminders.

    In addiction, a sequestered jury would lean toward older retired Caucasians


    Always seemed to me (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 04:57:48 PM EST
    The idea jurys could be shielded from public opinion was unrealistic

    Jury asks court (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    re "reasonable doubt."

    The standard jury instructions used by the Pennsylvania courts say, "To find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you must be convinced of his guilt to the same degree you would be convinced about a matter of importance in your own life in which you would act with confidence and without restraint or hesitation." The model jury instructions adopted by the federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, offers a lengthy definition that says, in part: "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt or to a mathematical certainty. Possible doubts or doubts based on conjecture or speculation are not reasonable doubts."  (Washington Post.)

    The Best Way to Explain What it Means (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    "Is it reasonable that the defendant didn't do it".  

    love to know (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 04:17:14 PM EST
    how many guilty and not guilty there are.

    think there might be one not guilty?


    Could be 11. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 04:32:33 PM EST
    I think it's (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 04:40:31 PM EST

    Judge is getting testy: (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 04:44:09 PM EST
    Just refused request to read back testimony that was read back today.

    Knowing absolutely nothing (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 04:48:38 PM EST
    About these things, I also noticed the testyness.

    It made me think there might be one holdout.  Either way.  

    Would the judge know this if that is the case?
    What the count is?


    No, the judge knows - or should know - (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    nothing about the internal workings of the jury's deliberations that has not been publicly revealed.

    No. Not at this stage. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 05:01:01 PM EST

    What did the jury order for dinner? (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 16, 2017 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    Jurors asked for testimony about a detective's interview with Cosby in early 2005. The comedian acknowledged groping Andrea Constand after giving her pills.

    Judge Stephen O'Neill says a court reporter is racing to transcribe that portion of last week's testimony. The jurors ordered strombolis for dinner while they wait.

    It's a wonder (none / 0) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jun 18, 2017 at 07:36:46 PM EST
    they could agree on that.

    hung jury (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 09:50:02 AM EST
    its said they will do it again.  im glad.  he should not be allowed to get away with it.

    also being said it was probably one or two hold outs for acquittal

    I am not so sure that the DA (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    will actually go through with trying the case a second time. First, Ms. Constand has to consider whether she is willing to put herself through the process again. On the other hand, the judge may reconsider his pretrial ruling limiting so severely the number of other accusers who could testify. Had the judge allowed three of them, for example, rather than just one, I think Cosby would have been sunk. This was most important ruling in the case, other than the judge's refusal to dismiss the charges entirely (on which the defense position wasn't as strong), after all, and it went in favor of the defendant.

    Some member or members of the jury (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    will undoubtedly speak with the press; then you will know how deliberations went. The judge cannot bar them from talking if they want to. All he can do is remind them they have a right to decline to be interviewed also. As of now, I believe their names are not public, but that will be lifted soon also, if it has not already been.

    Per Phil. Enquirer, (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    the court was a tad mre forceful re what he told the jurors. I'd link but my org. version iPad mini won't do this.

    I do not believe that order is lawful (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 18, 2017 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    I suspect that one of the major news outlets in Philly or Pittsburgh will be in court Monday to attack the judge's order keeping the names of the jurors secret and ordering the jurors not to speak to the press. I don't think either aspect of that is lawful, actually.

    It makes me think (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 18, 2017 at 06:53:54 PM EST
    There might be some "troubling" aspect of the breakdown of the voting  

    Or whatever it's called


    Why Shouldn't Their Names Be Secret? (none / 0) (#39)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 18, 2017 at 07:26:43 PM EST
    The public has a right to know??

    As I predicted, the media moved Monday (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    to lift the seal on jurors' names. Both prosecution and defense are requesting that the veil of secrecy remain in place. The trial judge held a hearing yesterday (Tuesday) and stated he would rule today (Wednesday).

    Juror names to be made public (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 21, 2017 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    Judge reversed himself, which as I suggested last week seems to me to be the correct ruling under the First Amendment.

    oculus (none / 0) (#36)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jun 18, 2017 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    Have you been rebooting your iPad regularly?

    My iPad is the origial model. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 18, 2017 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    I'll try.

    Why didn't Cosby just do (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    what every other philandering male in his history has done and just lie his as* off about his wife not understanding him at all and his marriage being a sad travesty?

    The disturbing thing to contemplate is that some men actually get off on doing things like drugging women so they can "have their way" with them.

    Cosby spokesperson tells Gloria Allred (none / 0) (#23)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    To go back to law school
    "For all those attorneys who conspired, like Gloria Allred, tell them to go back to law school and take another class," Wyatt said in a statement outside the courthouse.

    I don't know.. (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    all-and-all seems like Gloria's generally done alright for herself and her clients.

    Is she supposed to dream about being a Bill Cosby spokesperson when she grows up?


    She's rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (none / 0) (#25)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    Lots of crying accuser press conferences.  Her theatrics often make it look like it's more about her than her clients.

    Personally (3.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    the instant I see word 'lawyer' in print, I'm already rubbed the wrong way.

    People being mad at Gloria is like people being mad at an NFL linebacker because he tackles too hard.


    Did I mention that some linebackers (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    are sensitive, high-minded people of impeccable judgement and credentials?

    sounds to me (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    like she is rubbing the right people the wrong way.

    I believe Jeralyn is both an admirer and a critic (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Sat Jun 17, 2017 at 08:34:29 PM EST
    She said this years ago...
    How to ruin a good movement: Get Gloria involved.

    When she doesn't have a horse in the race, I find Allred to be a good legal talking head. But when she's representing someone, she's nails on a chalkboard.  Her daughter Lisa Bloom is a chip off the old block.