Professor James Cohen speculates on the reason the jury in the Etan Patz murder trial is still being urged to try to agree on a verdict, as well as the possibility of a violation of judicial ethics in The Guardian.
“I think the judge is pushing the envelope by sending the jury to deliberate further at this point. The jurors may not be aware that they have the power to go back to the judge a third time and tell him they can’t agree, that’s really dangerous, someone could compromise in a fundamental way about something that they do not believe in,” he said.
He said he had not seen anything that suggested the judge had made up his own mind about what the right verdict should be, rather that judges do not like declaring a mistrial if the jury cannot agree, because it is such a waste of time.
Cohen and Mitchell both guess there must be more than one “holdout” on the jury who does not agree with the majority about the verdict. Either a block on each side, or at least two or three who will not be swayed by the majority.
He pointed out that while some jurisdictions allow juries to reach a majority verdict, New York juries must reach a unanimous decision in criminal trials.
Read the entire article in The Guardian here.