Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Presiding judge declares mistrial after jury reports it is "fundamentally deadlocked"
Loading...
Summary
A presiding judge in the 252nd District Court granted a defense motion for mistrial after jurors told the court they were "fundamentally deadlocked" despite additional evidence and repeated deliberations; the case will be reset on the next available trial docket.
The presiding judge in the 252nd District Court granted a defense motion for a mistrial after jurors reported they were "fundamentally deadlocked," court records in the hearing show.
The judge told the courtroom she had received multiple notes from the jury about their deliberations, including that they began deliberating yesterday at 03:40, paused at about 05:00, resumed at 09:00 the next day, and had at times asked the court to read testimony and send evidence back into the jury room. At 10:45 the jury submitted a note that it was deadlocked; later, at 02:10, the jury sent another note stating, "we are fundamentally deadlocked. More evidence is not appearing to change minds. At what point can we declare a hung jury?"
Defense counsel (identified in the transcript as Speaker 2) moved for a mistrial, arguing that the jury had earlier indicated it was hung and that additional materials would not resolve the impasse: "Judge, we're gonna move for mistrial at this point as you, correctly recite it." The judge said she typically would consider giving a strong "dynamite" instruction to urge further deliberation but noted factors to weigh, including the overall length of testimony across trial days.
After hearing from counsel, the judge granted the motion: "I have granted a mistrial, in the case." She informed jurors the case would be placed on the next available trial docket and that their duty was complete. The judge excused jurors and said counsel would set the case on a review docket to schedule a new trial.
The trial record in the hearing summarized the testimonial timeline as testimony beginning Tuesday afternoon, with a few witnesses that day, two witnesses Wednesday morning, an extended break, and one additional witness thereafter; the judge characterized that combined testimony as roughly one day of trial time. No further details about the charges, parties, or scheduling dates were provided on the record during the exchange.
The case will be re-listed for trial by counsel on the court's review docket; no new trial date was announced at the hearing.
