Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Jury In Elizabeth Holmes Trial Deadlocked On 3 of 11 Counts (arstechnica.com) 32

Posted by BeauHD from the waiting-game dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Jurors in the Elizabeth Holmes criminal trial have been unable to reach a verdict in three of the 11 counts of fraud she has been charged with, according to a note read in court today. Eight men and four women have been deliberating for more than 40 hours over six days, much of which occurred before an extended holiday weekend. Today is their first day back from break. It's unclear what decision the jury reached in the eight counts they have been able to agree on. Judge Edward Davila reread part of the instructions he previously gave the jury, ones that outline the burden of proof to overcome the presumption of innocence. Davila also read to the jury a modified version of model instructions that are given to deadlocked juries. [...] After hearing the new instructions, the jury was sent back to deliberate the three charges further. UPDATE: Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jury In Elizabeth Holmes Trial Deadlocked On 3 of 11 Counts More

Jury In Elizabeth Holmes Trial Deadlocked On 3 of 11 Counts

Comments Filter:
  • Chances are the other counts are not guilty if they're hung on these remaining ones, and swaying towards not guilty.

    We would hope, if any sort of justice were to happen, they're going to convict on those counts and the judge will throw away the remaining counts they're hung on -- no point, the prosecution has won.

    But from my knowledge of legal matters, this doesn't look like a great sign for acquittal.

  • by trail 2-3 only have funds for Lionel Hutz and no expert witnesses.

    The state has unlimited funds to keep trying you.

  • As someone who has served twice on a jury in the USA, and not to digress but both times left me pretty jaded about the experience, yeah, most likely this means that she was found innocent on the 8 charges they have decided. I speak from personal experience here. The last time I served, we had a guy who was charged with 3 separate things on what I would call a "property damage" case. Nobody was killed or hurt, but we ruled that the defendant was guilty on 2 charges. The 3rd charge had 11 of us say "i

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Been on a jury once and it was a 6 week murder/man slaughter trial. I had the opposite experience to you, A lot of the lesser charges were no brainers and easy to call guilty on hence they were decided in the first few hours, the most serious charge was murder and a few of the lesser ones and we had literally 1 hold out as she thought the defendant was sorry and she didn't want to see her go to jail for a long time for murder. Took days to finally convince her and get the judge to instruct us that it is not

    • The last time I served, we had a guy who was charged with 3 separate things on what I would call a "property damage" case. Nobody was killed or hurt, but we ruled that the defendant was guilty on 2 charges. The 3rd charge had 11 of us say "innocent' and 1 guy held out for guilty.

      oof, I had a similar experience. 2/10 would not repeat it.

  • The jury has already reached verdicts on 8 counts so those can be delivered. It'd be up to prosecutors to retry her based on the three charges that the jury could agree upon.

    I think she's still going to prison but hey, I've been surprised the last few years about how truly bad prosecutors can be and how dumb it appears jurors are as well.

    • She only needs to be found guilty of one of the charges to spend time in jail.

    • I’ve generally been impressed with the outcomes in the US court system in the last few decades. Before that, it was bad. Real bad. But recently a lot of big ticket cases have been decided properly. This list is gonna get me downmodded instantly, but here goes:

      OJ Simpson found innocent. Obviously guilty but the cop that handled his evidence was shown to be unbelievably corrupt. Sorry, if a cop pleads the fifth when asked “did you tamper with evidence”, the accused goes free.

      Most cops

      • Kyle Rittenhouse found innocent. Dont get me wrong. I think that kid is a broken sociopath and a budding white supremecist darling who fake-cried on the stand. We can all expect great things from this little monster, I’m sure. But the videos show that he and the rioters were both aggressors. It was a mutual fight. He didnt spray bullets or drive a truck into a random crowd, like some of the other fine white supremecists that are locked up or dead.

        The fact that you can't recognize an actual stress caused breakdown and loss of control is hilarious. Especially since he broke down in a similar fashion after the verdicts were read. The nightly vomiting and nightmares in his cell the weeks after the incident must have been faked too, with the jailers lying about it for shits and giggles. I'm sure you think the performances on Law and Order look ultra-realistic though. As for him being an aggressor, please detail EXACTLY how he was an aggressor. I'm sure y

        • First off - I stated that the court result was appropriate, and that his adversaries werent exactly innocent schoolchildren.

          That being said, this is a 17 year old who grabbed an assault rifle, partied up with his favorite white supremecist group, and took an evening stroll through a leftist mob. Sorry, that’s hardly an innocent night out on his part. I’ve got no love for a mob of lefties, but “Looking for trouble” doesnt even begin to describe what Rittenhouse was doing.

          With

          • Do tell, of those he was with at the Kenosha protest, which ones were the white supremacists. I'm genuinely curious. What crystal ball is revealing these secrets to you. After all, you couldn't be ignorant enough to be talking about the couple of Proud Boys(not a white supremacist group in any case) who spotted him in a restaurant 7-8 months after the protests while he was eating with his mother and asked him for a photo. SURELY you aren't shortsighted enough to be referencing that.

            • Ouuf. Ok, so you like the Proud Boys? And you think theyre NOT a white power group? Youre too far gone, man. No point talking to you. I;m done with this. You can have the last word.

              • What's also interesting that acknowledging the obvious fact given who their leader is and they have a not insignificant number of black members that the Proud Boys are not a white supremacist group means I like them in your mind. Then there's the fact that he went looking for no trouble. Indeed, the only reason trouble occurred is because an arsonist with a gun(Ziminski) and a violent, mentally ill arsonist pedophile(Rosenbaum) decided to try and kill the person without any friends around who ruined their f

  • Guilty, guilty, guilty... no wammies... STOP!

  • Those hung-jury counts:

    Count three of wire fraud in connection with a wire transfer of $99,990 on or about Dec. 30, 2013: No verdict.

    Count four of wire fraud in connection with a wire transfer of $5,349,900 on or about Dec. 31, 2013: No verdict.

    Count five of wire fraud in connection with a wire transfer of $4,875,000 on or about Dec. 31, 2013: No verdict.

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2... [nytimes.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close