Jury deadlocked; Will resume deliberations Monday
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
Jurors were unable to reach a decision, returning no verdict on the capital murder charges of aggravated murder against Wesley Coonrod. However, Coonrod was found guilty of two counts of endangering children.
The Highland County Common Pleas Courtroom, filled with family members of both the victims and the defendant, was completely silent as Judge Rocky Coss asked the jurors on which verdicts they were deadlocked.
"All but counts six and seven," said the foreperson of the jury.
Highland County Clerk of Courts Paulette Donley read the two verdicts on which the jurors could agree. The jurors found Coonrod guilty on both counts six and seven, third-degree felony charges of endangering children.
The jury could not reach a decision on two charges of aggravated murder; two charges of murder with lesser counts of reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter; and arson.
Coonrod will remain in the custody of the Highland County Sheriff's Office as he awaits sentencing. A sentencing hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Friday, Oct. 15.
An order by Coss filed in April prohibiting any trial participant, such as attorneys, investigators, witnesses and court personnel, from discussing the case with the media, remains in effect.
The jury in the Wesley Coonrod capital murder trial has reached a verdict.
On Monday, at approximately 10 a.m., the jury submitted questions to the court, asking for instructions on what to do if they were deadlocked on a particular charge and a hung jury. A second question was submitted by the jury, asking if Coonrod would be tried again if they were unable to return a verdict.
Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss called court to session to review the questions, during which he stated that he would instruct the jury that if they were indeed a hung jury not to
return a verdict but to inform the bailiff. Coss told the court he would tell the jury that retrial would be a decision that would have to be made depending on the outcome of the verdict. The court is now awaiting the jury's response.
On Sunday afternoon the jury reported to the court that was deadlocked on at least one charge.
Court was called to session at approximately 1:20 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 10 by Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss to consider questions submitted by the jury.
The court considered written questions from jurors regarding an impasse by, initially, one juror on at least one of the charges. According to the note from the jurors, "There is one member of the jury who will not vote guilty on any issue without asking the others compromise their decisions. There does not appear to be any possibility of a unanimous decision on any of the charges. We are a hung jury."
A second note submitted shortly after indicated potentially two jurors could not reach an agreement. In another note, in separate handwriting noted by Coss, a juror said that he or she is tired and "not thinking logically."
The jury's note stated that one juror shows "biased sympathy and prejudice" toward Coonrod.
The jury asked Coss if deliberations should continue.
When Coonrod took the stand in his own defense Tuesday he became emotional and jurors passed him tissues. Later, when Coonrod was asked by Highland County Prosecutor Jim Grandey to read an exhibit of evidence, the defendant asked for a pair of glasses. A juror then passed him their own pair of glasses.
Coss said that he understood the jurors were tired, but that he could not dismiss a juror because he or she will not vote on a guilty verdict.
Six alternate jurors, who are not a part of deliberations, are being sequestered in the event a juror cannot continue in the deliberation process.
On Saturday, jurors asked: What is the next step when 11 jurors are in agreement, and one juror refuses to reach the same verdict?
According to law, all 12 jurors must be in agreement before returning a vote, they were informed. It was not indicated which charge the dissenting juror questioned.
On Sunday, the jury reported that all but one juror had reached the same conclusion. Jurors were brought back to Highland County Common Pleas Court and instructed to consider separate verdicts on all charges, including those on which they agreed and those where they disagreed.
In a note from the jury, jurors reported that they are "exhausted and homesick."
Jurors have now been deliberating since Thursday morning, Oct. 7 on whether or not they believe Greenfield resident Wesley Coonrod set a March 7 fire that resulted in the deaths of his two children, Thomas and Stephen. If convicted of charges of aggravated murder, Coonrod could face the death penalty.
Coss gave a written supplemental instruction to the jury Sunday, informing them that, "As a jury, you do not have to return a verdict on each and every count of the indictment. If you can reach a unanimous verdict on one or more counts, but not on other counts including any of the lesser offenses, then you should continue to deliberate on those counts on which a verdict is possible, including lesser included offenses and report your deadlock as to the others without identifying them.
"I am going to return you to the jury room and ask the 12 of you to discuss the issue and report back to me in writing whether you wish to continue deliberations," Coss wrote. "If you conclude that there is no possibility as to a verdict on any counts including any lesser included offenses, inform me of that. If you feel that you can reach a verdict on any of the counts, but do not identify which counts those are. If you should decide that you should continue deliberations, inform me in writing whether you wish to continue today, or adjourn today early and return tomorrow."
When jurors were brought into the courtroom and Coss asked if they had considered all possible verdicts, some jurors shook their heads no.
After approximately 15 minutes discussing their present status, the jurors indicated to the court that they may be able to reach verdicts on at least some of the charges. They requested to be returned to the hotel where they are being sequestered. Coss said that the jurors will begin deliberations at approximately 8:30 a.m. Monday, and court would be adjourned for the remainder of Sunday.
Nine questions have now been submitted to the court from the jury, but only three have been "matters of law." Coss presented the state and the defense with a proposed response, to be considered along with substantive instructions and closing argument instructions. Neither the state, represented by the Highland County Prosecutor's Office, nor the defense, represented by William Mooney and Jerry McHenry, objected to the proposed instruction.
Coss noted Saturday that a refusal to vote by a juror is considered a "no" vote. He gave them the following instruction when asked what to do when 11 jurors were in agreement and one juror would not vote.
"In a large proportion of cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected," according to the instruction. "Although the verdict must reflect each individual juror and not mere acquiescence in the conclusion of other jurors, each question submitted to you should be examined with proper regard and deference to the opinions of others. It is desirable that the case be decided. You are selected in the same manner, and from the same source, as any future jury would be. There is no reason to believe the case will ever be submitted to a jury more capable, impartial or intelligent than this one. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that more or clearer evidence will be produced by either side. It is your duty to decide the case, if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen to one another's opinion with a disposition to be persuaded. Do not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your position if you are convinced it is erroneous. If there is disagreement, all jurors should reexamine their positions, given that a unanimous verdict has not been reached.
"Jurors for acquittal should consider whether their doubt is reasonable, considering that it is not shared by others, and under the same oath. Likewise, jurors for conviction should ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment not concurred in by all other jurors."
Continue to check back to highlandcountpress.com for more as the story develops.
On Sunday afternoon the jury reported to the court that was deadlocked on at least one charge.
Court was called to session at approximately 1:20 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 10 by Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss to consider questions submitted by the jury.
The court considered written questions from jurors regarding an impasse by, initially, one juror on at least one of the charges. According to the note from the jurors, "There is one member of the jury who will not vote guilty on any issue without asking the others compromise their decisions. There does not appear to be any possibility of a unanimous decision on any of the charges. We are a hung jury."
A second note submitted shortly after indicated potentially two jurors could not reach an agreement. In another note, in separate handwriting noted by Coss, a juror said that he or she is tired and "not thinking logically."
The jury's note stated that one juror shows "biased sympathy and prejudice" toward Coonrod.
The jury asked Coss if deliberations should continue.
When Coonrod took the stand in his own defense Tuesday he became emotional and jurors passed him tissues. Later, when Coonrod was asked by Highland County Prosecutor Jim Grandey to read an exhibit of evidence, the defendant asked for a pair of glasses. A juror then passed him their own pair of glasses.
Coss said that he understood the jurors were tired, but that he could not dismiss a juror because he or she will not vote on a guilty verdict.
Six alternate jurors, who are not a part of deliberations, are being sequestered in the event a juror cannot continue in the deliberation process.
On Saturday, jurors asked: What is the next step when 11 jurors are in agreement, and one juror refuses to reach the same verdict?
According to law, all 12 jurors must be in agreement before returning a vote, they were informed. It was not indicated which charge the dissenting juror questioned.
On Sunday, the jury reported that all but one juror had reached the same conclusion. Jurors were brought back to Highland County Common Pleas Court and instructed to consider separate verdicts on all charges, including those on which they agreed and those where they disagreed.
In a note from the jury, jurors reported that they are "exhausted and homesick."
Jurors have now been deliberating since Thursday morning, Oct. 7 on whether or not they believe Greenfield resident Wesley Coonrod set a March 7 fire that resulted in the deaths of his two children, Thomas and Stephen. If convicted of charges of aggravated murder, Coonrod could face the death penalty.
Coss gave a written supplemental instruction to the jury Sunday, informing them that, "As a jury, you do not have to return a verdict on each and every count of the indictment. If you can reach a unanimous verdict on one or more counts, but not on other counts including any of the lesser offenses, then you should continue to deliberate on those counts on which a verdict is possible, including lesser included offenses and report your deadlock as to the others without identifying them.
"I am going to return you to the jury room and ask the 12 of you to discuss the issue and report back to me in writing whether you wish to continue deliberations," Coss wrote. "If you conclude that there is no possibility as to a verdict on any counts including any lesser included offenses, inform me of that. If you feel that you can reach a verdict on any of the counts, but do not identify which counts those are. If you should decide that you should continue deliberations, inform me in writing whether you wish to continue today, or adjourn today early and return tomorrow."
When jurors were brought into the courtroom and Coss asked if they had considered all possible verdicts, some jurors shook their heads no.
After approximately 15 minutes discussing their present status, the jurors indicated to the court that they may be able to reach verdicts on at least some of the charges. They requested to be returned to the hotel where they are being sequestered. Coss said that the jurors will begin deliberations at approximately 8:30 a.m. Monday, and court would be adjourned for the remainder of Sunday.
Nine questions have now been submitted to the court from the jury, but only three have been "matters of law." Coss presented the state and the defense with a proposed response, to be considered along with substantive instructions and closing argument instructions. Neither the state, represented by the Highland County Prosecutor's Office, nor the defense, represented by William Mooney and Jerry McHenry, objected to the proposed instruction.
Coss noted Saturday that a refusal to vote by a juror is considered a "no" vote. He gave them the following instruction when asked what to do when 11 jurors were in agreement and one juror would not vote.
"In a large proportion of cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected," according to the instruction. "Although the verdict must reflect each individual juror and not mere acquiescence in the conclusion of other jurors, each question submitted to you should be examined with proper regard and deference to the opinions of others. It is desirable that the case be decided. You are selected in the same manner, and from the same source, as any future jury would be. There is no reason to believe the case will ever be submitted to a jury more capable, impartial or intelligent than this one. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that more or clearer evidence will be produced by either side. It is your duty to decide the case, if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen to one another's opinion with a disposition to be persuaded. Do not hesitate to reexamine your views and change your position if you are convinced it is erroneous. If there is disagreement, all jurors should reexamine their positions, given that a unanimous verdict has not been reached.
"Jurors for acquittal should consider whether their doubt is reasonable, considering that it is not shared by others, and under the same oath. Likewise, jurors for conviction should ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment not concurred in by all other jurors."
Continue to check back to highlandcountpress.com for more as the story develops.
[[In-content Ad]]