* Here we go…

Judge Wood: "Since the last time I met with the parties, I've received two notes."

— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) April 24, 2025

More from Seidel…

The key note: “The jury cannot come to a unanimous verdict on all three counts. No one is willing to surrender their honest beliefs.”

(The other note was a clarification from the juror with a work conflict Friday.)

Judge Wood notes that, depending on how you read this, it could mean they have a verdict on one or two counts, but not all three. Or it could mean they can’t reach any verdict.

AUSA Prashant Kolluri suggests the judge ask the jurors what they mean by their note. Defense attorney Victor Henderson asks for a five-minute recess to speak with Jones.

Judge Wood says, “I’ll allow five minutes.” But she’s still talking through logistics.

Judge Wood points out that “the jury, to this point, has not been informed that a partial verdict is an option.”

The judge goes on to explain that jurors should be told a partial verdict would be a final verdict as to the count in question.

She notes that some jurors might be uncomfortable with that — and could decline a partial verdict.

Court’s in recess for what’s supposed to be five minutes.

Judge Wood is back on the bench.

This post will be updated.

…Adding… More from Seidel…

[AUSA Prashant Kolluri] asks the judge to send the jury a note that says, “has the jury reached a verdict on any count?”

Judge Wood counters with “has the jury reached a unanimous agreement as to any of the counts?”

Defense attorney Robert Earles asks Judge Wood to ask the question orally, with jurors in the courtroom.

So they’re debating a note, versus Judge Wood asking the question out loud.

Kolluri argues a note would be more efficient.

Henderson says the “solemnity of the proceedings” would be advanced by an in-court oral question.

Judge Wood is going to bring the jurors in.

Here they come.

…Adding… Back to Seidel…

Judge Wood to the jury: “In a moment I will ask you to go back to the jury room and provide some clarification as to whether the jury has reached unanimous agreement as to any of the three counts.”

Jurors are headed back to the jury room.

…Adding… Seidel…

The jury’s response: “The jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the three counts.”

Wow.

Hannah Meisel reports: “Judge is giving the parties another 5-10 mins to decide on how they want the court to respond.”

Stay tuned.

…Adding… Seidel…

[Prosecutor] Kolluri tells the judge prosecutors want the jury to keep deliberating.

Kolluri also says prosecutors “attempted to confer” with defense.

Doesn’t sound like it went well.

Kolluri asks the judge to send a note asking if any juror thinks “further deliberations would be …”

Judge Wood interrupts: “No. I’m not going to do that.”

Judge Wood says that, if jurors are going to be polled, it should be individually.

Henderson agrees that the jurors should be polled one-by-one in court. Seems likely to happen at sidebar, with the white noise machine on so we can’t hear them.

Hannah Meisel: Judge: I think my position is I ask each juror comes in individually and ask two Qs
1) do you think progress has been made since yesterday?
2) do you believe more deliberations would be fruitful?
After govt worries about public nature, judge says it could be done at sidebar.

…Adding… Seidel…

Judge Wood: “Only two of the jurors indicated that they felt any progress had been made since yesterday.”

Judge Wood: “One further defined ‘progress’ as ‘we talked more about it, went back and forth,’ but that juror also could not say that any person actually changed their mind about anything.”

Court’s in recess while the lawyers talk about it.

…Adding… More Seidel…

Judge Wood is back.

Prosecutors ask for a mistrial.

Defense objects to mistrial

…Adding… More…

Defense attorney Joshua Adams explained to the judge, for the record, that “the lack of unanimity in the jury room is evidence that the government has not met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Hannah Meisel: Judge Wood, though, cites some case law and points out that Adams’ reason is not a factor.

Discussing the factors required for a mistrial, Judge Wood estimates that the jury has been deliberating for around 24 to 26 hours.

She says they likely heard 30-34 hours of testimony.

Kolluri argues, and he says they learned while speaking to the jurors that there are “multiple jurors on each side that are entrenched.”

Hannah Meisel: Prosecutors are now laying out their arguments for the judge to declare a mistrial. “Nothing more the court can do” and risks exhaustion of jury. Defense rests on their previous objection [meaning they’re not going to explain their position further].

Judge Wood says it “appears” jurors hadn’t taken a formal vote on Count 2 [interstate commerce] when they sent their note Wednesday.

Judge Wood: “I do think the factors here weigh in favor of a mistrial.”

…Adding… Hannah Meisel…

[Judge] “I do think the issues here are more complex than they may seem at first blush…”

…So considering all the factors … risk of exhaustion…fact that they’re deadlocked on all 3 counts…

“I do think it’s appropriate at this point to declare a mistrial. So that is what I will do.”

* Sun-Times…

The federal bribery trial of Illinois Sen. Emil Jones III ended in a mistrial Thursday after jurors told the judge they were “unable to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the three counts.”

The jurors delivered their news in a note that followed nearly 23 hours of deliberations over four days. They had warned U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood on Wednesday that they’d potentially deadlocked on two of the three charges, which have loomed over the South Side Democrat since 2022.

Their disagreement appeared to have worsened after another day of deliberations Thursday.