Jury Deliberations

Tags:

Categories: Admin,Informational

The jury in Chris Deedy’s trial has deliberated for about 18 hours so far.

 

20130820-233835.jpg
Photo courtesy of istockphoto.com/Kuzma
 

As supporters of Chris, we’re all hoping for the quick return of a not guilty verdict. But what is “quick?” We did some research and wanted to give you some perspective of how long juries deliberated in a few high profile cases:

  • George Zimmerman – 16 hours – Not Guilty
  • Jodi Arias – 15 hours – Guilty
  • Casey Anthony – 10 hours 40 minutes – Not Guilty
  • Drew Peterson – 14 hours – Guilty
  • OJ Simpson (1995) – 4 hours – Not Guilty
  • Phil Spector – 30 hours – Guilty
  • Robert Blake – 35 hours – Not Guilty
  • Scott Peterson – 50+ hours – Guilty

As you can see, times vary and don’t really correlate to a particular verdict. Keep in mind, the jury in Chris’ case heard a lot of testimony over the course of 20 days. That’s a lot of information to go through and they probably want to do their due diligence to make sure they have the facts straight.

In the meantime, please keep praying for Chris and we’ll keep you updated as soon as we have any news.

Author: admin

2 Responses to "Jury Deliberations"

  1. pilot Posted on August 22, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    One fear that I have as time goes on without a verdict is that the jury may not be able to reach a verdict. I really dont know how that can be. Having been an attorney for many years, the law and the facts in this case appear quite clear to me, ie self defense and defense of others by a law enforcement officer. Obviously, based on the comments I read on various posting sites, there are many who disagree and feel that it is much better for a law enforcement officer to just walk away from a problem and leave weaker persons to the abuse of bullies, to mind his or her own business.

    However, one thing that is crystal clear to me is the animus and bias shown, not only in the posts and comments left by many, but by the bias of the court and the totally unnecessary vindictiveness shown by the prosecutor. A prosecutor can aggressively pursue a case in a professional and courteous manner. Futa was neither courteous or professional and she encouraged her staff to treat the defense team poorly as well.

    Which brings me to the point of my post. In the most unfortunate circumstance that this jury is unable to reach a verdict, this case, if retried (and I have to think with the animosity that the prosecutor’s has for the defendant that would be the case) this case needs to be moved to another venue, probably on the mainland. The case has received more Hawaii coverage than any case I can remember, it has largely come down along racial lines (although I have seen many posts by locals in support of Deedy), the media coverage, particularly in the early stages was very biased (it has tempered some since the facts have been put before the public). It would be virtually impossible to get an unbiased and uninformed jury in Hawaii after all of the on-going live coverage of this trial. Additionally, in all of the years I have been around courtrooms, I have never seen a judge wait days to charge a jury, let them deliberate a few hours, then give them a three day weekend, during which time they could read the papers, watch the tv coverage, and be influenced by friends, family, and media, if they had not been already. Oh yeah, the judge instructed the jurors to avoid seeing, watching or talking to anyone about the case. Are you kidding me? This jury probably should have been sequestered, but certainly should not have been sent home for a three day weekend. (It will be interesting to see what the judge does with them this weekend, since she has been letting them off every Friday during the trial.)

    This trial has exposed the ugly underbelly of the “Aloha” culture, state, and judicial system.

  2. Wailuku Posted on August 24, 2013 at 7:57 am

    Ditto^

Leave a Reply