May 8, 2013

The Kermit Gosnell jury has been deliberating for 7 days.

Still no verdict.

29 comments:

edutcher said...

Doesn't sound good.

This animal should fry.

MisterBuddwing said...

Doesn't sound good.
This animal should fry.


Really? Isn't the conventional legal wisdom that the less time a jury takes to deliberate, the more likely it's leaning toward acquittal? And that the longer a jury takes, the more likely it is the jurors are haggling over how guilty they think the defendant is?

Ann Althouse said...

The trouble might be over some of the charges.

Saint Croix said...

I've been discouraged about this case ever since I read about what happened with the murder prosecution against Dr. William Waddill, who strangled a newborn in front of witnesses.

dreams said...

It only takes one extreme pro-abortion fanatic to hang the jury.

Rabel said...

There are around 300 specific counts. That would take several days even with a consensus on the jury that he was guilty in general.

cubanbob said...

7 days? The jury must be deadlocked over some of the charges. Given the evidence I have seen in the press it would have taken me 7 seconds to determine he is guilty of 3 counts of murder.

Saint Croix said...

It only takes one extreme pro-abortion fanatic to hang the jury.

Obama would vote to acquit, I think.

MadisonMan said...

300 counts? Do just 30 a day, and that's 10 days. How long do you deliberate each day before calling it quits? 10 hours?

20 minutes for each count, then.

The verdicts will be brought in in 3 days.

MadisonMan said...

3 more days, that is, for a total of 10.

Lem said...

That's some mighty math there Madison Man.

Lem said...

I take it this jury is sequestered?

A sequestered jury is a tired jury.

I heard that somewhere.

Saint Croix said...

National Review is doing some investigative journalism about infanticides in Florida. Pretty appalling stuff, very similar to the Gosnell atrocities.

Matt said...

Madison Man, if ten days ends up being correct, that would be damned impressive on your part.

David said...

Good point, Rabel.

Still makes me wonder though.

Tim said...

They are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable: Roe v. Wade permits murder; yet the State has charged Gosnell murder.

How is one guilty of murder when it is legal?

They will acquit.

And, the pro-choice, pro-murder, pro-infanticide, pro-eugenics, pro-planned parenthood crowd will, if not cheer, heave a huge sigh of relief.

Murder of babies will still be legal.

Next time though, they'll not spare money on Lysol.

Lem said...

The trouble might be over some of the charges.

Althouse Attacks Jury Meal Ticket.

Revenant said...

Hung jury. They're taking the extra time because some percentage of the jury pool isn't convinced the babies were born alive.

The prosecution fucked up, as prosecutions in high-stakes cases tend to do. You don't get A-list lawyers in the DA's office.

Revenant said...

There are around 300 specific counts.

224 of those are charges that he violated the 24-hour waiting period. There wasn't separate testimony for each of those 224 incidents; the jury will likely decide his guilt or innocence on those charges en masse.

The prosecutors were, IMO, retarded to include chickenshit charges like that. It muddies the waters. They should have stuck to just the murder charges, and tried the abortion-law violations separately. As it stands they turned this into an abortion trial, and the most serious crimes he is accused of have nothing to do, legally speaking, with abortion.

Scott said...

Of course Gosnell will be found innocent. He is giving women the right to choose.

Henry said...

They're trying to figure out how to make death a part of life and life a part of death.

Mitch H. said...

That Waddill case is horrifying, Saint Croix. How could you hire a man like that, even after an acquittal? And yet he continued to work as an abortionist for decades afterwards.

Strelnikov said...

What is the racial makeup of the jury? Higher proportion of blacks = reduced likelihood of conviction of black defendant, regardless of the facts. (See: Simpson, O.J.)

bardseyeview said...

What are the odds that a black racial loyalist or an abortion absolutist are not present in a random group of twelve Philadelphians?

Matthew Sablan said...

I think it probably is just logistics. That's... that's a lot of charges to get through.

ken in sc said...

My jury experience leads me to think this is a hung jury.

n.n said...

We shouldn't speculate and gossip. The abortionist, and his contractors, have a "constitutional" right to privacy. No one, who is not in their shoes, can possibly appreciate the circumstances of their deviancy.

Baron Zemo said...

Women wanted choice.

This is what they chose.

Some abortion fanatic is hanging the jury.

Saint Croix said...

Hey Mitch,

Here is an article about Waddill trying to rebuild his practice. Kinda reminds me of the O.J. trial. He was treated like an outcast for a while. The hospital stopped doing abortions because of the Waddill case. Doctors would not refer patients to him.

I guess they got over it, and he was back in business.