Deadlocked jury leads to mistrial in Kolb murder trial
Circuit Judge James Teros this afternoon declared a mistrial in the first-degree murder case of Sarah Kolb after the jury deadlocked 11-1. The family of murder victim Adrianne Reynolds wept as the announcement was made.From accounts and comments from others, as well as knowing how tough a defense attorney Dave Hoffman can be, I was far from certain that Terronez could pull off what, as some commenters have noted, should have been a slam-dunk.
...
The jury foreman was the holdout, according to juror Steve Haskins.
...
Kolb’s attorney, David Hoffman, was philosophical.
"How do you read a victory out of this? It’s a nothing. There’s no conclusion."
Attorneys and court officials will meet next week to discuss their schedules for a new trial.
This morning, shortly after returning to the jury room, jurors sent out a request asking for a definition of the term "presumption of innocence."
Tuesday afternoon, the jury sent a note to Teros, asking for a definition of the word “intent.” Under one of the two murder charges, the state was required to prove that Kolb intended to kill Reynolds in order to convict her of murder.
But as Hoffman noted, this isn't a victory for anyone. It's essentially a call for a "do-over".
What impact, if any, does this have on Terronez's potential political ambitions?
NOTE: A couple of teens have left interesting comments on a previous post regarding this trial. Quite an insight on many levels.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/16/2005
8 comments
8 Comments:
hindsight is always 20/20, but when Jeff announced he would forgo the brutal, gruesome, and descriptive evidence from the crime lab, forensics, pictures from the Ill. State Police, of the crime scenes, one had to think this may be a mistake; today now we can say it was a mistake. Every month, week, day, hour, minute and second that Ms. Kolb has not been found guilty of this crime, will hurt Jeff on every level... personal, professional, and political. I am very sad today for all invoolved.
court room artist student (former)
I was not aware that the hold-out juror was being named in the media. What outlet did that?
That's completely irresponsible on their parts, and they should be condemend.
First, it opens this person up to living in fear for a long time to come, being harrassed and threatened, having his or her privacy violated, and other unasked for intrusions into his private life.
How in the hell could any reporter feel it was critical for the public to know the name of a person who was only doing his civic duty as he saw fit? Is this information we really need to know? Hell no.
There is absolutely no purpose for publicizing a person's name in this instance. It adds absolutely nothing to our knowledge or to the story, and serves ONLY to hold the person up to public scorn.
It's ridiculous.
A person who holds out on a jury are usually the most responsible and conscientious members, as they are not willing to risk unfairly convicting someone simply so they can get things done in a hurry and get back to their lives.
It happens all too often that people who aren't convinced of a person's guilt cave in to pressure from fellow jurors who can get very ugly when they want to simply get things over with and get out of there.
This jury foreman apparently wasn't willing to sacrifice a person's life simply for their own convenience. That's the way it should be. Unless and until a juror finds that the evidence shows beyond a doubt that a defendent meets the threshold for guilt explained by the court, then they should under no circumstances cave in simply to go along.
And exposing a person to harrassment and anger for simply doing their civic duty is the height of irresponsible and sensationalistic journalism.
The prosecution did not avoid the "grisly details". They were clearly spelled out in testimony from police and Nate Gaudet. He chose not to show pictures since they had no probative value. Nobody disputed the fact that Adrianne's body was burned and dismembered, and nobody disputed that the remains were Adrianne's. Because of these reasons, the only thing pictures would have done is incite emotion. This tactic would not have stood up to appeal.
I also think that an 11-1 vote indicates the evidence was sufficient, and that the hold out was an outlier. Had the vote been 9-3, then I would agree a change in strategy would be needed.
I don't agree with the Dope's assessment that the one holding out is usually the most conscientious, although I admit that could be the case. In the Times, he basically admitted he wasn't clear on the jury instructions.
And Maybesomeday's comments about "McKittrick" and "Santa Claus" are indications of what people will pull from left field to define as "reasonable doubt".
I personally don't see how a unanimous decision, one way or the other, is ever reached.
Anon, thanks for shedding some reasoned insight on this.
I stand corrected. I should have clarified that hold-outs are usually either conscientious and honorable, or they're simply contrarians who muck up the works for ulterior motives. Without being in the room, it's impossible to tell which catagory they may fall into, though if they speak to the press, it might suggest one over the other.
I hadn't had a chance to catch any post trial coverage in print or on TV news and did not realize the foreman was speaking to the media and had confessed to being unclear on the jury instructions.
I just don't like to see people thrust into the spotlight against their wishes, especially in a situation like this where the details are complex and it's likely most people will feel ill-will towards this person without understanding the situation.
Jurors and witnesses are often thrust into the limelight through no fault of their own other than playing their part in the justice system. If they wish to retain their privacy, particularly not having their names revealed in the press, short of a compelling public need for them to be named, or their voluntarily giving their names to the press, I'd argue that they should be able to remain anonymous.
People avoid jury duty enough as it is without it holding the fear that you'll be thrust into the media spotlight simply for doing your duty as a citizen.
I hadn't seen any coverage of the post-trial situation and reacted to a diehard's comment above when I assumed that the press had "outed" the hold-out jury foreman.
I've since been informed by a helpful reader that the foreman not only was not "outed" by the press, but that he'd willingly spoken with the press and even has a web site where he plans to write a "detailed account" of the trial, as reported on the SoLo and The Passing Parade blogs.
(www.hurty.com)
Far from wishing to be anonymous, the hold-out has invited publicity and everything that comes with it.
Sorry to have been mislead and speaking too soon.
Mike Hurty was outed by another juror. Juror Haskins pointed him out to Chris Minor and stated that the foreman was the holdout.
Mike Hurty went to the press AFTER he had been outed by another juror. I think what Haskins did is wrong and now Mike Hurty is suffering the backlash from it.
I don't know if I would have responded to the press after being outed like Mike Hurty has done, but that's his choice. I do believe that quite a few people will be posting things about this case on their blog sites. That's not a crime either.
A lot of people keep blog sites as an electronic diary. They just want to get their feelings out about things. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are looking for attention. He might be looking for attention and he might not be. I just think that it is wrong for the public to tar and feather him as they have.
Anon above, very interesting facts if they are in fact true. This would suggest that Hurty did not initially seek press attention. But after being "fingered" by someone else, it's likly he felt obligated to at least refute a rumor. In other words, once a reporter has a rumor or story, they can then go to the subject and likely get their reaction.
So now Hurty is tangled in the media cobweb and there's no way out.
And the more the misinformation and uninformed hatred is directed at him, the more he's likely inspired to put out HIS side of the story and answer his many critics. This is a natural and rational reaction.
But then he'll be villified once again as being a "publicity hound" or for "grandstanding." by the same people whose attacks prompted his response.
It's a no-win situation for Hurty unless he's able to provide an honest explanation for his actions which is impossible to criticize, and of course, there will ALWAYS be someone who will continue to dog him no matter what he says.
Yes dope, I agree.
I do know that he was "fingered" by someone else because I witnessed him being outed firsthand. I do not envy the situation that he is in.
Post a Comment
<< Home