Jury submits question: What happens when 11 jurors are in agreement, and one will not vote?
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
Highland County Common Pleas Court was called to session Saturday afternoon to respond to a question from the jury: What is the next step when 11 jurors are in agreement, and one juror refuses to verdict.
According to law, all 12 jurors must be in agreement before returning a vote.
Judge Rocky Coss held a hearing at approximately 3 p.m. Saturday afternoon to consider the question from the jury.
Jurors have now been deliberating since Thursday morning 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 said that three questions have been submitted from the jury, but the first two were not a matter 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.
In addition to the aggravated murder charges with death penalty specifications Coonrod is also facing charges of arson, a felony of the second degree; two counts of murder, unclassified felonies; and two counts of child endangering, felonies of the third degree. On the counts of murder, jurors are permitted to consider lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Coss noted that a refusal to vote by a juror is considered a "no" vote.
Jurors were brought into the courtroom so Coss could give the instruction "face to face."
"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."
It was not indicated which charge the jury questioning.
If a verdict is not reached Saturday, the jury is scheduled to consider deliberations until approximately 6 p.m., when they will be returned to their hotels, under sequestration, for the night. They would then return to court at approximately 8 a.m. Sunday.
Highland County Common Pleas Court was called to session Saturday afternoon to respond to a question from the jury: What is the next step when 11 jurors are in agreement, and one juror refuses to verdict.
According to law, all 12 jurors must be in agreement before returning a vote.
Judge Rocky Coss held a hearing at approximately 3 p.m. Saturday afternoon to consider the question from the jury.
Jurors have now been deliberating since Thursday morning 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 said that three questions have been submitted from the jury, but the first two were not a matter 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.
In addition to the aggravated murder charges with death penalty specifications Coonrod is also facing charges of arson, a felony of the second degree; two counts of murder, unclassified felonies; and two counts of child endangering, felonies of the third degree. On the counts of murder, jurors are permitted to consider lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Coss noted that a refusal to vote by a juror is considered a "no" vote.
Jurors were brought into the courtroom so Coss could give the instruction "face to face."
"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."
It was not indicated which charge the jury questioning.
If a verdict is not reached Saturday, the jury is scheduled to consider deliberations until approximately 6 p.m., when they will be returned to their hotels, under sequestration, for the night. They would then return to court at approximately 8 a.m. Sunday.
[[In-content Ad]]