The thread about the Scott Peterson case took an interesting turn into a discussion about the "swiftness" of the verdict (after they finally kicked off that doctor/lawyer). I think that's worth a new discussion: What was your quickest verdict?

Mine was 6 minutes. Juvenile burglar found in the victim's house hiding under her car, wearing her Houston Oilers jacket, with her jewelry in his pocket. But I saw one juror with the book "Runaway Jury" in her hand as they went back to deliberate.

Tried a PI in JP against a Tech Professor. They voted in the hallway on the way to the jury room. The bailiff made them go in to the room and knock before he brought them back to the courtroom.

Sent a jury out in Lavaca County at 9 minutes to 5 p.m. The only question was whether they wanted to deliberate tonight or tomorrow in the a.m. At 2 minutes to 5, a verdict was returned. Guilty of 10 counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault, 5 counts of Sexual Assault. After punishment, they invited me for refreshments.

7 minutes for a criminal mischief/law of parties case. Defendant was the driver of the get away vehicle. The total trial time was about 3 hours.

Dude was falling down on video. No alcohol; DRE and urine came back that Defendant had cocaine, meth, THC, and some other CNS Depresants. His defense was he wasn't driving-- buddy testified he was driving but was so wasted he let Defendant drive his car later (funny). Jury came back in 11 minutes.

Isn't the issue whether it is a rush to judgment or a rush to get home? Some cases require very little "deliberation". What I want to know is what portion of the 6 minutes was spent complying with art. 36.26, what portion in discussing the evidence, what portion in voting, and what portion in preparing the written declaration- and whether step two can legally be skipped entirely.

Possession with intent to deliver. Picked a jury on a Thursday, trial to start on the following Monday. Defendant felt that jury selection was important enough to show up for, but the attorney could handle the trial by himself. Guilty in 2 minutes, max punishment in 3 minutes.

My seven minute verdict was an assault case. One crack smoking femme fatale around these parts assaulted another crackette with her high heel shoe, narrowly missing eyeball damage. Jury was in and out in 7 minutes. Had another for 7.5 minutes in a fast change artist case.

Both of those were long ago in misdemeanor land. In felonies, no matter how strong my case, it always takes at least an hour.

By the way, how do you get a punishment verdict on a defendant who flees during the guilt/innocence phase? I thought you had to wait until apprehended after a guilty verdict to do the punishment?

Agg. Sexual Assault of aChild (withDNA) 4minutes on guilt-innosence and 6minutes for a life sentence on punishment. (they said they took so long on punishment because they wanted to make absolutly sure they signed on the right blank.

I generally get a tentative verdict from the panel members at voir dire. That saves a lot more time.

Mark Mullin and I (I carried his briefcase) -- Texas Mafia capital murder case in Bowie County: 11 days from general voir dire, individual questioning, guilt/innocence, punishment, to death row.

What is the longest jury deliberations you've had

Shortest: In an Agg Sex Assault case, our jury returned a verdict of guilty in 12 minutes and Life in prison in 7.

Longest: 23 hours in Big Spring on capital murder case involving a drunk 17-year-old who killed a state trooper. One juror hung up on the second question, so life.

Can't remember the shortest ... they all seem like years. The longest wasn't that long, about one day. It was a murder case and the jury went out on Valentine's Day. Along about 5:30 p.m., the judge sent a note into the jury room informing the jurors to take as much time as they pleased, but that they needed to give the bailiff contact numbers so that word could be sent to their homes to pack an overnight bag to go to the hotel where they would be sequestered. You could hear the anguished cry of the single young guy all the way out in the courtroom. They requested more time and had a verdict by 6.

I tried a piece of crap a few years back for capital murder. The jury came back with "death" answers after 13 minutes. He was executed a couple of weeks ago. At least he must have had a decent cell or two in his body since he surprisingly apologized to the victim's family while he was on the gurney. We never did patch up our relationship though... I received a "letter from the grave" a day or two after his execution. It started out with "Hey d--- sucker,..." and it went down hill from there. Oh well... you can't please all of the people all of the time!

Mike,

Isn't this the same guy that bragged he had arranged to have his ashes scattered over the victim's grave?

You're right, John... We figured that he was just mouthing off and was just trying to mentally torture the family even more with that statement. However, out of an abundance of precaution, we had a Ranger "visit" with his execution witnesses re his threat. Mr. Nice Guy's "spiritual advisor" assured the Man With The Star that he was going to take possession of the ashes and that no such thing would happen. Of course, the Ranger impressed upon the group about how upset practically everybody in the State of Texas would be if his threat came to pass.

The anti death penalty groups love to use "poster child" type cases to promote their cause. This one sounds like he would be a good one for our side

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregG:

By the way, how do you get a punishment verdict on a defendant who flees during the guilt/innocence phase? I thought you had to wait until apprehended after a guilty verdict to do the punishment?

---

My undertanding is that you can try the whole case, including punishment, without the defendant there (as long as he shows up to start it), you simply can't sentence him until you have him back. I assume in this case the verdict was returned, and the case was then recessed until the defendant could be taken into custody, at which point the judge would sentence the defendant in accordance with the jury verdict.

I tried a murder case where the defendant was present when the jury was selected but failed to appear during the rest of the trial guilt and punishment. Needless to say he got life. It held up on appeal. (Turned out he went on a several day drinking binge. Can you imagine how he sobered up when he found out what happened?)
He actuelly had some mitigating evidence that would have prob. helped him had he been present to present it