Jackson Free Press

The case was turned over to the jury this afternoon at about 3:15. We sat in the media center while the jury deliberated and at approximately 5:30 Judge Gordon summoned the jury into the courtroom. As of today the votes are split 6 to 6. The jurors will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. tommorrow to continue deliberation.

Previous Commentsshow

Ok, I'll go first. Spouse says, 'you are kidding yourself if you expected anything else.' I did though. I really did.

sunshine

Jun 20 2005

I agree,... I never thought 6 people would think there could be any guilt involved. This will be over today, Killen will walk, and justice will prevail.

PUDDINTANG

Jun 21 2005

I watched the closing arguments last night on ETV, or whatever it's called, and am very worried that the State of Mississippi has failed to convict Killen again. A hung jury or acquittal is more likely than a guilty verdict. The prosecutors did a good job considering the limitation placed on the evidence by age and the faded and jaded characters of the witnessed they had to use. Since no one could put Killen at the scene of the murder or testify first hand to his actual involvement, coupled with Moran's very logical, emotive and instctive brillance (I hate to admit to this) of arguing the flaws of the case, Killen stands an excellent chance of walking. Attorney McIntye walked all over the rules of closing arguments and tricked Mr. Hood into not objecting by a ploy. Moreover, despite MyIntye's cheating or circumventing of the rules, he was quite effective at emoting and diverting blame as well as inflaming passions about other issue of crime, media attention, ill-fated motives, all of which should have been objected to and sustained. I bet this was as effective as impermissible. Hood needs a whipping for not stopping it. Effective and brillant lawyers know jurors respond just as well to instincts and emtions as do they logic, facts and the truth. This is why successful lawyers are good actors who tell good stories with great passion. After saying all of this, I dearly hope that I'm wrong in my assessment, because, like many, I believe Killen is guilty and want him to pay for these horrible crimes.

Ray Carter

Jun 21 2005

It is my (limited) understanding that great leeway is allotted in closing and opening arguments. The one time I was on jury duty, the prosecution objected to some hyperbole by the defendant during closing arguments, and the judge overrulled him, and actually told him that court etiquette allowed a great deal of leeway in those regards. Perhaps a lawyer can help us out on this one.

PUDDINTANG

Jun 21 2005

A Capital Trial Lawyer (Ray Carter) wrote the first comments on this.

Ray Carter

Jun 21 2005

No, Ray, I think you are right; I am afraid you are right. I have to say that the whole trial was unbelievable; lackadaisacal almost, until the end. If the state had nothing of substance more than they had a few years back when they claimed not to have enough to go to trial, (and it appears that they didn't) then they should have waited. Listening to the transcripts being read, I couldn't do anything but convict him, but it was hard to listen to, in the way that the lawyer reading the questions read it - very monotonous and a lot of stumbling over words. I'm not sure how many jurors paid attention to those transcripts, considering how bland the reading was. I don't believe that Moran summed this up correctly, but anyone who didn't listen carefully to the transcripts or didn't remember them that well might well have accepted Moran's summation; if you didn't hear them read, well.... Tell us what McIntyre did (because I don't know what the rules are for closing arguments). I'm already bothered with Mr. Hood for not coming into this better prepared. I'm afraid he's not given his own image any polish. I watched this on Mississippi ETV and counted at least three times that Killen called Hood a son of a b*tch - you couldn't hear it a couple of the times, but the camera was on him and it was impossible to miss what his lips were forming.

C.W.

Jun 21 2005

A lot can be said to answer your question. Generally, the lawyers are supposed to argue the facts of the case and any reasonable extentions, deductions, extrapolations, etc, that can be made from those facts. The rules, law and judges will grant wide lattitude as long as we reasonably stay within these bounds. We're not supposed to mislead the jurors as to their responsibility, lie about the facts, inflame passions and prejudices, inject irrelevant emotionalism, argue facts not in evidence, give personal opinions or factually unsupported opinions, argue matters that aren't issues in the case, and so on. In my opinion MyIntye injected irrelevant emotionalism, inflamed prejudices and passions, argue matters not in evidence, gave factually irrelevant or unsupported opinions, i.e. talked about all the crime in Jackson (veiled appeal to racism), mentioned the size of the present prison population, blamed the media for the retrial of the case, appealed to the old south passions and prejudices, talked about how Mississippi had changed and how the trial was bringing up the old that hurts Mississippi, etc. I would have objected to interupt his flow, point out to the court and jury what he was trying to do, and placed everything back in focus during the 2nd part of the State's closing argument. The State got to go last and failed to put the witch back in the bottle. Lots of white Mississippians feel exactly what McIntye said.

Ray Carter

Jun 21 2005

I didn't think the appeal to racism was all that veiled; what else would you expect from Ross Barnett's speechwriter? I actually thought that Duncan did pretty good. He was not a particularly passionate orator, except at a couple of points, but that dispassion before the passion just pointed it up. And looks like the jury was paying attention during the transcript reading!

C.W.

Jun 21 2005

In fairness to Duncan, I didn't see his ending. I was so hurt by what I saw before him and by his beginning that I couldn't watch all of his. A trial is a contest, a fight; to win you also have to respond to the moment. I worried they didn't adequately respond to oposition's closing argument.

Ray Carter

Jun 21 2005

I wasn't impressed by Moran's delivery or demeanor. Sometimes it was hard to focus on what he was saying for being distracted by his frequent "Now..................." while he rustled papers and his stumbling speech. I had the impression that his speech was more basically relevent to what the jury was considering, but less compelling to the jury than McIntyres fire and brimstone and call to racist beliefs. Duncan was methodical as well, but less bumbling and rambling - more to the point, clearer and more concise. Then he finished with some passion that did not sound slick or mean-spirited, but seemed to me deeply heartfelt and personally painful. I think the defense may have hurt themselves with the character witnesses at the end - the preacher who was so reluctant to say that the perpetrators of this crime should be punished in the courts of Mississippi and the ex-mayor who claimed that the Klan was a peaceful oganization that had "done a lot of good down here." It was odd, too, that during some fairly boring parts, Killen appeared very alert, was taking notes, etc., but during McIntyre's speech, which was hardly boring, appeared to doze, and McIntyre drew attention to it. I am thinking that was staged. I know one time I thought Killen was asleep because he was very still, leaned to one side and had his head down - til I noticed that it appeared he was taking notes on the pad, holding it in his lap rather than on the table.

C.W.

Jun 21 2005

C.W., you're quite discerning and intelligent in your observation. Moran brought the logic that was missing from McIntye. Had McIntye had Moran's logic we'd had greal lawyering. I'm critiqueing styles, presentations, abilities, instincts, emotionalism, intellect, all of which effect winning. I have the great disadvantage of not being able to see the jury as the arguments were made so I can't say definitely whether it definitely impacted or not.

Ray Carter

Jun 21 2005

I certainly agree anytime somone thinks I'm discerning and intelligent. I agree with you on the other thing, too. :-) I'm quite happy that we didn't have a single lawyer with the best parts of each of those two. That would have been interesting, all right (to see the jury reaction to various testimony and to arguments from the lawyers.) I guess the folks there got to drink that all in. I wish I could have been there to see it all. You, with your experience, might have felt less uneasy if you had been able to see their reactions, but it probably wouldn't have helped me (but it would have been interesting). I was already too uneasy with the paucity of the state's case as far as live witnesses went, as well as the move to include manslaughter as an option, which said to me that the state was uneasy as well. Fascinating stuff.

C.W.

Jun 21 2005