Clark Rockefeller Trial Blog

Starting now, anyone who wants to comment on and WBZ Blog needs to be registered…think of it as becoming a “citizen” only without taking a test or swearing an oath.  And, there’s no red tape with being a registered member of the WBZ Community because comments will be processed the same way, and the same word filters will be in place (as outlined in our Terms of Use). 

Why registration?  As you all know, we recently started using more of your comments within our newscasts to help tell stories with your voices.  So, we all agreed here that requiring registration would help reduce the disruption, minimize anonymous comments and make sure everyone’s experience is rewarding.

Thanks for participating!
Stephanie Miller aka "Kord"

   At 11:20, the white light on the corner of the court officers desk lit up.  This is how the jury signals they want to communicate with the court.  Everyone in the courtroom jumped when they saw it... and wondered, does the jury have a question, or a verdict?

   Defense attorneys Jeffrey Denner and Tim Bradl told us it's a verdict.

   Wow.  I can't wait to hear what this panel has decided, and I really hope jurors agree to talk to us afterwards.

   It's starting to feel like a scene out of the Bill Murray film "Groundhog Day."  The opening scene, actually, which replays throughout the movie as the Murray character relives the same day again and again.

   The defendant entered the courtroom and sat with his lawyers, we in the courtroom all stood as the jury filed in, followed by the judge.  He asked them if they've seen any media coverage of the case or obtained any outside information about it, they all shook their heads in the negative.  The judge sent them back to the jury room, they filed past us through the side door to resume their work.

   Another day of waiting begins.

   Conventional wisdom is juries like Fridays.  They don't like to let this business linger over a weekend.  In this case, if they didn't reach a verdict today, they'd resume Monday.  There would be no weekend deliberations.

   I spoke yesterday with David Frank of Lawyers Weekly about possbility of a hung jury.  A former prosecutor, Frank is among the attorneys who said yesterday that four days into deliberations, it was certainly reasonable to wonder if the jury's hung up on one or more charge.  Frank says cases which involve the insanity defense can be difficulty for juries.  They have to weigh the opinions of opposing medical and psychological experts and determine which side they believe.  He also says, having seen this jury with so many young (college age) faces, he wondered from the start if this might be a hung jury, based on the conventional courtroom wisdom that young jurors are often more receptive to the insanity defense.  A caution there-- that's a theory-- that's a look at the jury demographics on paper. 

   It's worth pointing out that, although deliberations have extended into a fifth day, at no point has this jury expressed any indication they're having trouble.

   If the jury came back and told the judge they were deadlocked on one or more charges, he would instruct them to go back and try again.  If they come back again and claim they're deadlocked a second time, a mistrial is declared on those charges the jury can't resolve.

   The lunch hour for court personnel runs from 1 pm to 2 pm, which means nothing can happen in courtroom 906 during that time.  The jury's in its own room.  Lunch was delivered to them before 1 pm.  We don't know if it's a working lunch for them, some down time, or a combination.

   As we wonder when the twelve will speak, a couple of us realized the following: IF jurors don't reach a verdict by the end of the day, they will have done the equivalent of talking around the clock.  If the day ends as usual around 4 pm, they will have deliberated a total of 24 hours.  Also, they will have spent half as many days in deliberations as it took for them to listen to opening statements, testimony, and closing arguments.

For a third morning since they took over the case, the 12 jurors and 4 alternates filed into the courtroom, shook their heads when the judge asked if they'd had trouble following his instructions (at the end of every day he instructs them not to discuss the case or their deliberations with anyone, and not to follow any media coverage of the case) and returned, single file, to the jury room  for another day's work.  They walk right past the man whose fate is in their hands.  I've never noticed any of them making eye contact with the defendant as they walk, and even in the jury box, it's rare that I've seen any of them so much as glance at him.  Their attention is generally right on the judge.

Christian Gerhartsreiter AKA Clark Rockefeller, meanwhile, was more animated than usual, smiling and heartily shaking the hand of one of his attorneys before the jury came in.  We haven't seen this before.  It looked like, say, cocktail party behavior from a former life of this man-- a man who's been a serial reinventer of himself.

Jury took the case at 9:15.  The watch is on.  Again.

   The jury-- eating lunch right now-- put forth a question to the court this morning about the law on criminal responsibility.  In this case, what that means is they're wondering about the insanity defense.  Specifically, they wanted to know what the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to negate the defense's claim that Rockefeller was legally insane when he kidnapped his daughter.

   The prosecution must prove both of the following:

1) That Rockefeller knew he was doing something morally and criminally wrong.  AND

2) That Rockefeller was perfectly capable of behaving in accordance with the law, that is, he had no mental defect or disorder that prevented him from controlling his behavior.

   This is interesting because it MAY be an indication of some progress.  A possible scenario-- and I say POSSIBLE because I'm not in that jury room, so I can only speculate-- is the jury has determined guilt of at least one charge and is now asking the question, "But can we find him criminally responsible as defined by the law?"  One attorney told me that's a fair inference, but it's not the only one.  It's worth pointing out the defense essentially conceded the facts of the kidnapping charge, telling the jury to look beyond the facts to Rockefeller's state of mind. 

   The defense contests the remaining three charges (assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and giving a false name to police) on both factual grounds and the insanity defense.

   The jury arrived in the courtroom a few minutes after 9 AM, filed back behind closed doors to resume their secret discussions.  We just learned that late yesterday they requested additional copies of the jury instructions.  I'm told they were given about six copies originally.

   In addition to Guilty and Not Guilty, the jurors must consider the possible verdict of Not Guilty for Lack of Criminal Responsibility.  That's the insanity defense.  If Rockefeller is found not guilty by reason of insanity, he'd undergo a 40-day mental health evaluation.  This often happens at the state psychiatric hospital in Bridgewater, but Rockefeller's attorneys said they'l likely request a state hospital with less stringent security,  They don't believe the defendant poses a danger or security risk.  After the 40-day evaluation, there would be a hearing at which a judge would decide if Rockefeller should be committed to a state psychiatric facility for six months.  He'd be reevaluated after that.  The two key criteria are a defendant's CURRENT mental health (remember, at trail, a jury is concerned with a defendant's mental state at the time of the offense) and whether he poses a danger to himself or others.

   If he's found guilty, the charges against Rockefeller carry the following penalties:  custodial kidnapping (5 years maximum), assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (10 years maximum), assault and battery (2.5 years in house of correction), giving a false name to police (1 year house of correction).

   And in case you're thinking hung jury, it's early for that, but it is possible for a jury to deliver a partial verdict-- that is, reach unanimity on some charges while remaining hung on others. 

   The jurors resumed their work behind closed doors at 9:15 Tuesday morning.  We next saw them-- a few looking tired, most looking in good spirits-- around 4 pm when they were dismissed for the day.

   Unlike yesterday, they had no questions for the court... so not even a tiny clue as to where they are on deliberations.

   More tomorrow.

   Jury watch is a crazy assignment.  It's two extremes-- you wait and wait, and then you absolutely scramble.  It's like being in a car with two speeds-- stop and 100 mph.

   It's not that I'm doing nothing as I wait for the jury to make some noise.  I've already written outlines for every conceivable outcome.  I've spoken with attorneys, the court clerk, did a live shot for our noon news.  It's busy.  But all of this is done with the knowledge that once there's a verdict, everything changes.  Immediately.

   One humorous aspect of The Wait is we all think it turns on us.  For example, once my "No verdict" story was edited for our 5 pm show (it will only air if there's no verdict) I was sure there would be a verdict.  In the press room, one cable producer said, "We're about to go off the air, so it'll happen then."  And a network producer said, "I'm going to get something to drink-- it will obviously happen while I'm gone."

   What's taking so long?  Well, it's been a long trial.  The jury has a lot of evidence to consider.  They have to decide on 4 separate charges, plus the insanity issue.  

And so we wait.

   The jury-- after confirming they'd followed the judge's instructions to avoid talking to anyone about the trial or following any media coverage of it-- resumed deliberations at 9:15 this morning.

   In case you're wondering, I have no sense of whether a verdict will come today, and even if I did, it would be worth very little.  Unless you're one of the 12 people in that room, it's impossible to know how a jury is approaching its task, whether jurors are agreeable in their deliberations, or how fast it's moving.