Jurors evenly split on Buju's fate

[Hortical]

Jurors evenly split on Buju's fate
BREAKING NEWS: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 - UPDATED: 9:56 AM
Judge rejects lawyer's motion for mistrial
BY PAUL HENRY Observer reporter henryp@jamaicaobserver.com

Monday, September 27, 2010


TAMPA, Florida — A jury foreman minutes ago told United States judge Jim Moody that they have not been able to reach a verdict in the drug case involving Jamaican Reggae star Buju Banton.
The foreman said the 12-member jury was split evenly.
"I don't know if we will get to a final decision. We don't feel that we will progress, so could you provide further instructions? Since Thursday we have been reviewing evidence, nobody has changed their minds from their original positions," the jury foreman told the court.
Moody then instructed the jurors to take their time in coming to a final decision.
"Be as leisurely as the occasion may require," Moody said.
The judge gave further instructions that none of the jurors should surrender their conscience decision.
Banton's attorney David Markus then filed a motion for a mistrial but Moody rejected the motion.
Banton appeared in court in a white shirt and a cream coloured pants today. His feet were shackled.
The long wait for a verdict has not been going down well with the artiste's supporters who all appeared nervous.

[Gamma]

is it that either decision must be unanimous ... whether acquittal or conviction? don't recall that being the case ... the prosecution has the burden, granted that when an exculpatory defense is raised there is a burden shift in that the defense has to prove its' theory BUT as i recall that burden is NOT BARD....but rather the probability test.

[Hortical]

It is too early for a mistrial and it could go either way.

[Islandman]

Would love to know the answer to that. If it has to be unanimous for acquittal there will almost certainly be no verdict.

What else could it be, simple majority required for not guilty verdict?

[Gamma]

if it must be unanimous for a conviction only then the would have been a verdict. to require unanimity for an acquittal seems to be too much of a burden on the defence and would seem to fly in the face of a presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.

[Hortical]

Those jurors just believe the evidence supports a guilty verdict. Jurors are like average people with all their cultural baggage.

[Gamma]

that has ALWAYS been the case and will continue to be the case.

[OJ]

well thats a hugh jury.. they would then have to decide to retry.. it would be up to the persecutor to decide.

[Hortical]

Too early for a hung jury. If there is no verdict at the end of the week, then yes.....

[Time]

if it must be unanimous for a conviction only then the would have been a verdict. to require unanimity for an acquittal seems to be too much of a burden on the defence and would seem to fly in the face of a presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.

Read he judge's initial instruction to the jury. He said that your verict must be unanimous in order to stand. He never specified whether it was a gulity or not guilty verdict that must be unanimous in order to stand therefore I infer that any verdict must be unanimous.

[Islandman]

If it is a hung jury I would hope they just deport him and call it a day.

He has already served 10 months in jail which is about what I think he deserved anyway.

[Islandman]

On paper it is too early but its very unlikely that 6 jurors are going to flip either way. I think thier minds are all pretty much made up.

[Hortical]

Boss, I served on a jury a few years ago. The initial vote was 8-2 and after a few days, the 8 persons changed their vote and aligned themselves with the 2. Anything can happen........

[Gamma]

8 angry persons!

[Baddaz]

gamma, in federal felony cases unanimity is required for guilty or not guilty verdicts...