![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (7)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleThe judge studied a variety of case law and appeals decisions overnight relating to the topic of deadlocked juries. Crigler said at 9 this morning that he would ask the jury at 10:30 whether it is hopelessly deadlocked.
Jurors in Bedford County Circuit Court resumed deliberations this morning as the proceedings continued into the fifth day. No further information about today's proceedings was available at press time.
Cook, 23, is charged with first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder in the Feb. 14, 2007, murder of Bill Ross, a Shelbyville car salesman.
Defense attorney Jack Dearing moved for a mistrial a total of three times Thursday as Cook, her attorneys and the prosecution waited for a verdict from the jury.
But no decision was forthcoming. Instead, jurors asked Crigler to hear the definition of "premeditation" as it related to Cook's mental state. Crigler replied by reading the legal definition of first degree murder to the jury again.
At noon, Dearing made his second mistrial request; however, Crigler chose to ask jury members when they returned from lunch if any further deliberation and instructions would help them reach a verdict.
Several jurors nodded yes, and the 12 returned to their chambers. But at 1:40 p.m., the jury returned to the courtroom and with a show of hands, revealed that nine jurors thought they could continue, while three thought that no further progress could be made.
The jury left the courtroom and Dearing made his third request for a mistrial. But Crigler denied that request and then dismissed the jury for the day because one member had a doctor's appointment in Tullahoma.
Crigler then gave the defense and prosecution an hour to research the topic of deadlocked juries to give him guidance on the next step in the case. Attorneys from both sides gave their arguments, citing case law and appeals rulings, and Crigler said he would study them Thursday night.
On Wednesday, jurors stated in a note to the judge that 11 of their number had voted to convict Cook of first degree murder and one had voted for voluntary manslaughter. Another note said that 11 were voting for conspiracy to commit first degree murder while a single juror was voting for conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter.
Bill Ross was shot three times while he slept in his bed at his Wartrace Pike home last Valentine's Day. His wife, 38-year-old Kimberly Ann Ross, was sentenced to life in prison last November after pleading guilty to first degree murder for her role in planning the slaying.
District Attorney Chuck Crawford claims Cook pulled the trigger while Young, 20, allegedly loaded the gun and let Cook enter the home to shoot Ross in order to make the death look like part of a home invasion.
Dearing said earlier this week that while Cook may be guilty of pulling the trigger, she should not be found guilty of conspiracy or premeditated murder.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Since the outcome is pretty obvious and a mis-trial will be declared, perhaps they could get the one MORON who is holding things up to fit the bill for the new trial which you and I, Joe Taxpayer will have to pay. I'd say about 300,000 thousand should take care of it. What a joke! Give the Defense attorney credit. He did an excellent job picking this idiot from the jury pool!
I must be an idiot too because I think that she should only be charged with Man Slaughter, I'll be praying for you Ashley.
she should be convicted of first degree murder, she pulled the trigger not once, but THREE times. she knew what she was doing. i dont feel sorry for her, people like her should get life in prison.
& anyone to think she doesnt deserve what she gets, is a idiot and should probably be in the same place. :)
Wow, aren't we all entitled to opinions, and isn't the purpose of the jury to have different views and come to a fair conclusion between them? It seems pretty inconsiderate to call the lone juror a moron for sticking to his guns in his beliefs, whatever they may be.
Whatever his/her reasoning, I'm sure there IS a reason he/she feels it should be manslaughter. They have that right, just as the other jurors have the right to think what they think.
Yes, you have the right to stand out in the rain naked while the temperature is only 40 degrees. Just don't expect me to pay your medical bills! We are essentially paying to have this cold-blooded killer re-tried because this juror exercised his right to be an idiot. Sorry your apparently as blind to the FACTS in this case as he was.
So basically if I kill someone, then show some remorse...I shouldnt get charged with 1st degree murder? Sweet....
Gee Dolittle, I wish I'd checked this earlier so I could have the juror argument with you....
I did not say that I agreed with the juror, I simply said it is his/her right to vote as he/she sees appropriate, and that IS THE POINT of the jury trial to begin with.
Clearly, you don't have an argument, because if you did you would express it rather than resorting to calling me blind and the juror an idiot for exercising his right.