Bill Cosby Jury Deadlocked, Judge Says Keep Trying

NBC News reports:

The jury in the Bill Cosby trial said Thursday it’s deadlocked, but the judge ordered them to continue trying to reach a verdict. “We can not come to a unanimous consensus on any of these counts,” the panel said in a note to the judge sent out at 11:06 a.m. after more than 30 hours of deliberations. Cosby’s attorney made a motion for a mistrial, which Montgomery County Judge Steven O’Neill denied. The judge instead gave the jury new instructions – known as an Allen charge or a Spencer charge – reminding them of their duty to try to reach a decision. But, the judge added, “do not feel compelled to surrender your honest belief” of what the evidence showed simply to come to a verdict.

  • Macbill

    You only need to buy one juror off.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      I was a juror on a criminal trial and we were split down the middle 6/6, after deliberating for three days. The one thing we agreed upon is that the needle was not gonna move.

      • fastlanestranger

        Had the same thing happen. Ugh.

      • Lumpy Gaga

        OTOH, my last civil trial was 8 jurors, and 7 in agreement is considered a verdict. So they reached it without me.

      • another_steve

        I served on a jury that was right out of the “12 Angry Men” mode. It was a gang-related homicide where all 20 witnesses to the murder gave conflicting testimony.

        We were sequestered for two nights. On Friday afternoon, the last holdout juror agreed to agree with the other jurors, and a unanimous verdict was reached.

        His reason for changing his vote?

        “I wanna get the hell outta here and spend the weekend at home with my wife and kids.”

        • Xuuths

          Sadly, that is a typical way “justice” happens… when deliberations become too inconvenient.

          • another_steve

            Yes, I suspect mine was a fairly typical experience. I don’t know of any better method for determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases, though.

            Someday we’ll have technology right out of “Star Trek” whereby they attach electrodes to your brain and undeniable evidence of your guilt or innocence will appear on a monitor.

            But we’re not there yet.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            There is an episode of ST Voyager where hunky young Lt, Tom Paris is wrongly convicted by an alien judge who uses telepathy (or empathy or something) to look into the victim’s last moments before death. Captain Janeway is of course able to turn a whole civilization around in the course of 51 minutes, and spring Lt. Paris

          • (((GC)))

            And if applied to actual murderers, that civilization’s punishment (forcing the person to relive the victim’s last horrified moments twice a day or so) fits the crime much more than simply killing them or locking them up.

          • (((GC)))

            In the book The Truth Machine, (apparently) unbeatable lie detector technology creates vast changes in society. For one thing, political candidates who refuse to be interviewed under the Truth Machine find themselves unelectable.

          • another_steve

            Oh how we needed that Truth Machine last November.

            But we got neither tax returns nor truth out of that orange monster.

          • clay

            and, typically in PA, it never reaches a jury, but the accused gives in because jail is easier than fighting.

    • Or just have one who is intransigent. My wife was a juror on a medical malpractice case last autumn where it gradually became clear to her that everybody but one person was pretty sure there was no malpractice…but that one person wanted to put their “stick it to the doctors because they can afford it” ahead of actually listening or dispensing justice.

      Turned out the case ended in a mistrial anyway because the plaintiffs’ attorney team deliberately threw the case when they saw they weren’t going to win.

  • crewman

    Does anyone know how often a jury that is deadlocked reaches a decision after being sent back to try harder but not to surrender your honest belief just to reach a verdict?

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Sometimes. But it doesn’t bode well for the Prosecution, no matter how you slice it.

  • MonochromeMouse

    How the fuck are they deadlocked? Motherfucker didn’t even defend himself. He flat out admitted to giving Quaaludes to women he wanted to have sex with.

    • clay

      He claims she wanted it, too.
      A juror bought that because they already believed that women should have to put up with sexual harassment to keep the job they (otherwise) want.

  • Anastasia Beaverhousen

    Are these jurors deaf, dumb and blind?

    • The_Wretched

      Rich powerful man privilege. It’s the whole reason this is with a jury and not a judge.

    • another_steve

      Thank you. (Though “dumb” is out — it’s “mute” now, girl 😉

      I mean, did the women he abused consent to having drugs slipped into their drinks?

      What am I missing here?

    • Ranger One

      I think they are looking at a woman who had drinks with friends, when to his house, had an orgasm, and had encounters with him afterwards. What’s a responsible juror to do?

      • clay

        What’s a responsible juror to do? Realize that most women have drinks with friends, realize that being drunk would have diminished capacity for consent, anyway, discounted whether she orgasmed as irrelevant “legitimate rape” bullshit, and realized that they still had a work relationship . . .
        but these were Pennsylvania jurors.

        • Ranger One

          just don’t think he intended to have sex without her consent. Kinky? Yea. They both were.

          • clay

            That doesn’t work for the lesbian he assaulted in the same way.

          • Ranger One

            It was defining issue between them, but not a matter for the State.

  • Jonathan Smith

    i cant even…………

  • Rex

    I knew this would happen.
    To quote another man who’s name I won’t mention: “When when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything.”

  • Tomcat

    Well he got away from this one, BUT it cost him a good amount of his wealth to do it.

  • Gonna be a mistrial, I think…

  • TheManicMechanic

    Someone will sneak some Jell-O into the juror’s lunches and it will be over.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Pudding Pops. For your mouth.

  • Boreal
  • Pollos Hermanos
    • Lumpy Gaga

      Quaaludesicles.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        Where do they sell those? (Not going over to Mr Cosby’s house, no way, no how.)

  • fastlanestranger

    I served on a jury that deadlocked. It was pretty upsetting. The end.

  • No matter the outcome, Cosby’s reputation will be ruined forever and there will never be a stand-up bit more prescient or more skin-crawlingly creepy than his ‘Spanish Fly’ one.

    • bambinoitaliano

      Not like he has much years left. His children perhaps will not inherit the lucrative royalties that’s been destroyed by their father.

      • Lars Littlefield

        He had only one child, a son. And he was murdered in a freak roadside ambush ten+ years ago.

      • clay

        Yep, he’s old– he should have been off Temple U’s BoT before the indictment.

  • JT

    Bill Cosby Jury Deadlocked, Judge Says Keep Trying

    The trouble is that they’re all asking themselves, “If Drumpf can get away with everything, then …”

  • Tomcat

    Just accept the fact that the courts cannot bring justice to poor people that are victims of rich people.

    • American courts, sure. Many other nations are rather more enlightened and civilized these days.

      • Tomcat

        Unfortunately our constitution does not allow us to choose which country we try them in.

        • The_Wretched

          Maybe. ADR has all but taken over and the courts do defer to choice of law provisions in contract.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            ‘Choice-of-law’ provisions usually do not stipulate extraterritorial court systems (and there is a question whether they even could)

          • The_Wretched

            mentioned for proof of concept of applying ‘foreign’ law rather than a court’s own case law.

      • billbear1961

        Among the “advanced” democracies, ours is the most primitive. In fact, it’s failing.

        And this is mainly due to the triumph of the right-wing propaganda machine.

        Until the serious news media and the Democrats expose and defang that machine by going after it relentlessly and aggressively, this backwardness will continue and grow WORSE.

        Despite all the TERRIBLE damage the machine has done to the body politic, comedians’ voices are STILL the ONLY ones in this country consistently raised against it.

        The failure of other responsible voices in this country to take it on and ERADICATE its truly poisonous influence is THE story, THE scandal, of the past QUARTER CENTURY.

        • I mentioned downthread about a medical malpractice case my wife served as a juror for last autumn. She was stuck on that stinkburger of a case for three horrible weeks before it ended in a mistrial and the way she described it, the whole process was a nightmare.

        • Stev84

          It’s also failing because the way many parts of the government and society are structured are fundamentally flawed. In the legal system for example there is the adversarial approach that values theatrics and following procedures over finding the truth. There are elected judges and elected prosecutors (with far too much power) that favor being “tough on crime” to advance their own political careers over being just.
          And the jury system itself is deeply flawed too. It stems from a time when it was certainly an improvement over unaccountable judges. But today a mix of professional and lay judges would be better.

          You can find some people writing articles and studies against those things, but ultimately it’s not up for debate. On the contrary. Many things that have bad effects are praised as being very good and fundamental to America.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            If elected judges and prosecutors favor being ‘tough on crime’ so much, shouldn’t Cosby be toast?

            The jury system is flawed, but I don’t hear you proposing a better idea. Why would a ‘mix of professional and lay judges’ be better? That is what they have in the Chinese legal system, and the Soviet legal ‘system’ as well. Do those systems produce ‘better’ results?

        • Phillip in L.A.

          The reason you might perceive the U.S. court system as ‘failing,’ is due to a lack of funding by the respective legislatures of a co-equal branch of government

    • clay

      . . . or middle-class women who are victimized by rich men.

  • billbear1961

    It’s pretty obvious someone has been purchased.

    • clay

      In our sexist society, someone didn’t even have to be purchased.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    OJ again

    • AmeriCanadian

      Was just going to post the same thing. Some star-struck jurors no doubt.

  • boobert

    You have to be on a jury to realize how this happens. The wording of questions you are asked is tricky, and you are only allowed a yes or no. One person can throw the whole thing off. It’s pretty much a rigged game.

  • Robert Adams

    And there is the problem with the jury system in a nut shell.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      What’s the problem?

      • Robert Adams

        They decide which side presented the better theatrical show rather than finding out what really happened. Thus OJ and others get off.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Isn’t that inherent in our culture? Maybe it is part of the institution of jury trials–the idea of showmanship–but this is also a cultural trope popularized by, e.g., To Kill A Mockingbird, Twelve Angry Men, etc.

          Also, is there a difference between “law” and “justice”?

          • Robert Adams

            Yes there is a difference between “law” and “justice”. Google it.

            But while “justice” is a big part of “law”, on many occasions the law obstructs justice. I make this argument every time I’m called for jury duty. I carefully explain that I know enough about our legal system to conclude that while a jury may hear the truth and nothing but the truth, a jury never hears the whole truth.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            I’ll make a deal with you. If you search “Socratic method,” I will not drink that big cup of hemlock over there

          • Robert Adams

            What does the Socratic method have to do with American law and justice, or this discussion?

          • Phillip in L.A.

            We lawyers have a saying, “There are three sides to every story: first, what the Plaintiff says happened; second, what the Defendant said happened; third, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!”

          • Robert Adams

            Yeah, but as a member of the jury you are faced with other factors: Cops lie. DA’s get exculpatory evidence excluded. Defense lawyers get incriminating evidence excluded.

            So for a juror there are four sides: “First, what the Plaintiff says happened; second, what the Defendant said happened; third, what really happened, and fourth, THE BOVINE FECES SPREAD OUT BEFORE THE JURY BY THE WHOLE SYSTEM”!

            When dozens of people come forward with the same story as women did in the Cosby case… well how does that saying go … twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

            But when the jury is made up by bunch of people who are so insensate and ill-informed that they not only qualify to sit on the case, but also lack enough basic smarts to escape jury duty, the law may be served, but justice isn’t.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Very good! Now do you see what the Socratic method had to do with it? 🙂

    • Talisman

      Yeah, we should just go back to the days when we could lynch someone just because he has been accused.

      “He needed killin'”.
      “Case dismissed!”

  • Reasonoverhate

    This was not an open and shut case. The plaintiff had multiple inconsistencies in her story. I’m sure the stories of the other women were suppressed and not allowed as evidence. He’s guilty as hell in the court of public opinion but in this particular case…..I see how the jury is having a tough time.

    • Objectively…yeah. I didn’t want it to be so, but that’s how it was looking to me, too. I was like, “Jezuz, why can’t this have been someone — or several someones — whose account was air-tight?” They DO exist. There are dozens of them.

      The only upside is the court of public opinion has already ruled that he’s a creepy, rapey pervert who’s had a lifelong squik about drugging women and then…well y’know.

      • clay

        Because the statute of limitations had expired on the other complaints.

    • Ranger One

      Wasn’t she drinking wine with friends before the encounter, and had encounters with him after? She orgasmed? Not a clean case.

      • clay

        Of COURSE she had “encounters” with him after– she worked for the University where he was a trustee. It’s called “keeping your job”. And orgasm is a physical response– if a guy comes when being raped, who’s to say it wasn’t just milking his prostate, not that he was giving consent.

        • Ranger One

          In your example, you get milked. So you have a few glasses of wine, take some pills, then jizz with Mr. Wrong. In that case, although the next morning you say to yourself, “Why did I do that,” you can’t through your mistaken hook-up in jail.

          • clay

            and in your set up, anyone who still tries to do their job after being sexually assaulted by their boss, has no legal recourse.

          • Ranger One

            There was legal recourse. She was paid in a civil suit. When she told him he was angry, he offered to pay for schooling. A misadventure, not rape.

        • Ranger One

          I think what she really wants is public resolution with a misguided past. She doesn’t get that.

  • Boreal
  • GayOldLady

    And everyone wonders WHY the 40 other women who accused him of sexual assault didn’t come forward at the time.

    • Tomcat

      Especially if he were found innocent then he would sue her for a fortune.
      At least by a hung jury he has no leg to sue this one.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        That is a little premature. Even if there is a judgment of mistrial, there will be a new trial (most likely–up to prosecution), and no civil case will be heard while a criminal trial is pending.

        • Tomcat

          This was a one and done attempt to convict him, there will NOT be a retrial.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            If you say so

          • (((GC)))

            If he’s acquitted, there won’t be a new criminal trial on the same charge. And it wouldn’t guarantee him prevailing in a civil action. Remember O.J. Simpson…

          • Tomcat

            He WON’T be acquitted, it is HUNG. There will not be a civil trial, they already said so much before this trial.
            Everyone needs to just let it go and live to fight another day. They knew it would be a long shot to convict him after ALL those years and by next week this will all be over and done with. And If he were acquitted there could never be a new trial on that charge because of double jeopardy law.

  • Gay Fordham Prep Grad

    all it takes is one.

  • Tomcat

    Love the huge camera lens. Must be for looking deep inside his nose at that distance.

    • Tomcat

      Or reading minds.

  • Lazycrockett
  • I was afraid of this. He’s a beloved celebrity and at least one juror was bound to want more evidence than just he said/she said.

    Why weren’t there multiple victims in one trial or are the others past the statute of limitations?

    • another_steve

      Trump got away with it too, based on his celebrity status.

      People think to themselves, “Oh gee… he’s a celebrity. They all do that sort of stuff. Who cares?”

    • Natty Enquirer

      You know, it’s just possible that one or more jurors just didn’t believe the plaintiff. I’ve sat on a jury where that was the case.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        Didn’t believe the *victim,* right? This is a criminal prosecution.

  • yes b’y

    seeing Cosby being led in by his handlers reminds me of Cheech and Chong’s Blind Melon Chitlin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAiZ8zY1Ghs

  • Ranger One

    I don’t think he is guilty. She drank lots of wine before meeting him, and had encounters with him after. That’s not rape. It’s a confused person.

    • Talisman

      If she drank lots of wine, she might not have been in a position to consent. It doesn’t matter if she had sex with him before or again later.

      That being said, this is a classic he-said-she-said case. There’s no physical evidence and very little circumstantial evidence. It’s very difficult to get a conviction on just an accusation (or should be).

      • Ranger One

        She may have indeed felt violated. But that’s not a crime under these circumstances. Angry at someone in a case of sex, wine, kink, and repeated contacts can’t throw someone in jail. It’s life, kink and encounters, not a dark man invading you. I think what she really wants is purity, and pure past contacts. She doesn’t get that.

      • Ranger One

        We all do things when sober the next morning we say, “Oh, shit.” But not rape.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada
  • Bj Lincoln

    Why didn’t all the women who have come forward not be part of this? When you have so many women, who didn’t know each other, come forward with the same story about the same man, it makes sense he planned, drugged and raped them. What is the problem?! I could care less if the man was famous or not.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Apparently the Prosecution learned nothing from the trial of Orenthal James Simpson…. I hope they hurry up and offer a plea-deal.

      • Tomcat

        He will not plea, since obviously there IS doubt of his being guilty.
        This is over and done. Let it go.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Frankly, my dear, I don’t really give a damn

    • Tomcat

      They were not allowed due to statue of limitation of the crimes against them. Only the one was a special case for some reason.

  • Phillip in L.A.

    Bad news, everyone!

  • Dejerrity

    The jury is just holding out for more Jello pudding pops and a bag of roofies.

  • SDG

    Seriously?

  • EastCoastJ

    Kind of sad to think Bill Cosby was one of the first celebrities to come out in support of same-sex marriage.