A Hole In One, Paul Weininger [top novels to read txt] 📗

his birth. He shared the same biological mother as the Rabbi and was the Rabbi’s twin. He had no reason to ask his boss if he thought that the man in the newspaper photograph looked like him unless he had an ulterior motive for the question. I also remember testimony that Straub was taking unauthorized pictures and videos of Rabbi Bloom during his services, which left me with the impression that he was planning how to replace him, by copying his look and mannerisms. That’s probably also why he took Hebrew lessons from Rabbi Isaac. Although I still didn’t see a birthmark on the video, it seems pretty clear that Straub had a plan to replace the Rabbi, so my vote now is guilty.”

Next, the foreperson called on Juror Nine, a young woman in her early thirties and unemployed. Her prior job was as an administrative assistant to a married corporate executive, with whom it was whispered that she had an affair. “Can you add to this conversation and either convince us that Straub is innocent, or have you changed your mind to guilty?” asked number.

“What disturbs me the most is the lack of explanation for finding the .45 caliber Glock gun with a silencer attached laying under the Rabbi’s incinerated corpse. This appeared as if they had been placed there before his body had been laid down on top of them. Surely, he knew the weapons were there when he placed the dead body on top of them. I can understand finding the head above the ashes especially if Straub was in a hurry to leave the backyard during the fire and didn’t notice the head sticking up. But the gun inside the ashes has now convinced me that he must be guilty, because he never mentioned a gun and silencer when he confessed to placing the body into the backyard. I’m changing my vote to guilty,” explained Juror Nine.

After three days of such discussion, the foreperson again asked for a show of hands. This time eleven hands were raised for guilty and only one for innocent.

Juror One turned to the lone holdout and asked, “Number Five, haven’t you heard anything in all the evidence we’ve discussed that might change your opinion”

“I don’t think there is anything that any of you can point to that can change my mind. Despite all the fingerprints and DNA and witnesses, there is absolutely no proof that Straub pulled the trigger.”

Number One looked at him sternly and asked, “So, Number Five, you are saying there is no chance you will change your decision?”

“None!”

“Well then,” the foreperson said with a sigh, “that leaves us with eleven guilty and one innocent. I guess we’ll have to notify the judge that we have a deadlocked jury.”

The jury continued to deliberate for three more days, trying to convince Juror Five to change his vote, before they sent a message to the judge’s chamber that they were ready to return. The judge notified all concerned parties that the jury was ready to come back and that they should return to the court. The prosecution, the defense attorney, and Straub reappeared, and all the media rushed back in, along with the gallery observers.

The judge told the bailiff, “Direct the jury back into the courtroom.”

As the jury came back in, all eyes in the courtroom stared at them. The judge asked the foreperson, “Has the jury reached a decision?”

With tremendous case of nerves, the foreperson faced the judge and told him, “Your Honor, we are not able to agree on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. We are deadlocked.”

Facing the jury, Garnett incredulously confronted the people on the jury panel and sternly scolded them. “This is not acceptable. You have deliberated for seven days. There was enough testimony presented for you to come to a decision. I am directing you to return to the jury room and continue deliberations until you reach a verdict.”

Two days later, the judge called everyone back to the courtroom as the jury entered again. “Madam Foreperson, has the jury reached a verdict after the additional two days of deliberations?”

“Your Honor, we have not reached a verdict and believe that we are hopelessly deadlocked.”

“How far apart are you?” he asked her.

“At last count, it was eleven to one.” She would not, of course, say which way the jurors voted or who the holdout was.

“Well,” the judge responded, “that tells me that you have not fully completed your duties as a jury. I will give you another chance to continue your deliberations. Take as long as is needed until you can all come in and tell the court that you have a unanimous verdict.”

After an additional three days, and tremendous pressure applied to Juror Five by the other jury members, who wanted very much to be done with this and go home, the court clerk advised the judge that the jury was ready to return to the courtroom.

The judge addressed the jury. “I have sent you back twice, in addition to the first time you went in, and you have spent a total of eleven days of continuing deliberation. Has the jury finally been able to agree on a verdict?”

He did not tell them that if their answer were “no” for the fourth time, he would call a mistrial and send all the parties home.

The foreperson stood in place, raising her voice so all in the courtroom could hear it and staring at Straub, she said, “We have, Your Honor!”

“Before you read it out loud, please hand the written verdict to the court clerk and he will bring it to me for review.” said Judge Garnett.

The judge took the slip of paper from the court clerk, read it to himself with the slight hint of a smile, and handed it back to the court clerk to return to the foreperson.

Judge Garnett looked at her and said, “Madam Foreperson, would you please read the verdict.”

Forty

“The defendant is to rise and face the jury,” said Judge