Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Live coverage
Posted in:
* Ope…
Judge Wood: "I do not have a verdict. I do, however, have three notes."
— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) April 23, 2025
More from Seidel…
The first: “If the jury is still deliberating at the end of the day Thursday, 4/24, can the jury unanimously decide to not convene on Friday and continue Monday? Or can an exit time on Friday be unanimously agreed for an early exit?”
The second: “At this point, it doesn’t look like the jury can reach a unanimous agreement on Counts 1 and 3. Is there any assistance that can be provided?”
Judge Wood says she’s inclined to let jurors know she’ll respond to them in the morning.
The judge also says the third note is more substantive, so she’s holding off on it for the moment. She’s bringing the jury in to give them her standard end-of-day instruction.
JUST IN: The jury considering the bribery case against Illinois Sen. Emil Jones III signals it may not be able to reach an agreement on two of three counts.
Count 1 is a bribery charge, and Count 3 is lying to the FBI.
Very curious about that third note, which Hannah Meisel reports the judge says is “substantive re: the jury instructions/law.”
Lots of hung juries lately in these corruption trials.
Count 2, by the way, is an alleged “Travel Act” interstate commerce violation.
…Adding… The judge just read the third note…
Judge Wood just read the jurors' third note. It's long. Basically, it boils down to "must the jury agree that both things of value [the $5K or the money for the ex-intern] were accepted …? Or is it enough that one of the things of value were accepted?"
— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) April 23, 2025
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 5:10 pm
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Next Post: Live coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What is count two?
Comment by Jeb Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 5:15 pm
Travel Act
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 5:17 pm
Always so heartwarming to see a jury take things seriously. Makes one have a belief in the system
Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 6:08 pm
This looks like (I hope!) a jury putting a healthy check on prosecutorial overreach.
Comment by Dan Johnson Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 6:19 pm
Are the Feds getting worse at this? Or is the general public becoming more skeptical?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 11:16 pm
Said it early yesterday. I’ll say it again. Acquitted.
Comment by Eire17 Thursday, Apr 24, 25 @ 5:02 am
Agree with the comment that it really is great to see a jury so clearly taking their responsibility seriously. It’s rare to get this type of glimpse into the thinking of a jury in real time.
Gives one a greater sense of confidence that they Jury — whichever way they go — will have come to the proper decision based on their instructions and the evidence presented in court.
Comment by SpiDem Thursday, Apr 24, 25 @ 9:55 am
Juries generally DO take their jobs very seriously. Shari Diamond at Northwestern (along with Neil Vidmar at Duke) were tasked with studying the only actual jury deliberations ever videotaped, out of Arizona, when Arizona was studying changing some of its rules about juries. (They tapes can never reenter Arizona, hence Northwestern and Duke ran the study.) There are a variety of papers published about it (some in the scholarly press and others more public-friendly) but in general they found juries took even the most trivial cases very seriously and were extremely conscientious about doing their jobs well. Here’s one paper: https://wwws.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/diamond/papers/judicature.pdf
Comment by Suburban Mom Thursday, Apr 24, 25 @ 10:35 am
- Makes one have a belief in the system -
Don’t get carried away.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Thursday, Apr 24, 25 @ 6:31 pm