VERDICT: Hung jury on capital murder charges; guilty on child endangering WATCH THE VIDEO

 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.

"We further find that violation did result in serious physical harm (to each child involved)" according to the verdict. 

 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.
Coonrod was charged with setting a March 7 fire in his apartment at 150 A Lafayette St. in Greenfield that resulted in the deaths of his two children, Thomas, 4, and Stephen, 3. 
He could have faced the death penalty, or life in prison if convicted of the aggravated murder charges.
The state was represented by the Highland County Prosecutor's Office and the defense was represented by William Mooney and Jerry McHenry.  

 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. 

 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.

 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. 

Coss asked the jurors if there was any possibility that they could reach a verdict if deliberations were to continue. The jurors shook their heads indicating no. 

Coonrod sat motionless, occasionally fidgeting, as he awaited the jury's decision. 

When the verdict had been read, the defense asked that the jury be polled. Donley called each juror by name, and asked them if this was their decision. Each juror answered "yes."

Coss then asked jurors a series of questions regarding their sequestration before the verdicts were read.  

As he prepared to dismiss the jury, which had been deliberating since 11:40 a.m. Thursday, he thanked them for their tremendous service. Each juror was given a stipend for $20 a day for each day of service. 

"I know that all of you have made a lot of sacrifices to perform your civic duty," Coss said. "Far more than most citizens are ever requested to do. I know that all 12 of you worked long and hard in attempts to reach verdicts in each count. I know that it was difficult and frustrating, at times heartbreaking, and the people of this county certainly owe you a great debt of gratitude."

This is the first jury to deliberate a capital murder case in Highland County since the early 1950s, according to Coss, and potentially the first jury in the county to be sequestered. 

"It is easy for people to say, 'Well, I probably would have done it like this or that.' And as all of you know, talk is cheap," Coss told the jury. "It's not until you are one who has heard the evidence, and heard the law, and go into the jury room to deliberate you realize how challenging and difficult this task can be. Particularly when there are opposing viewpoints among the jurors. You have certainly worked hard and diligently and made extra, extra efforts, staying here as long as you have trying to reach a verdict. As far as I am concerned, no one can criticize you for not having come to a verdict, because you certainly tried."

Coss said that as long as he was judge, if any of the 12 seated jurors or six alternates, who were also sequestered, were called for jury duty , they would be automatically excused upon request.  Coss then excused the jury from service.

 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 Judge 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."

 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. 

 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 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.