2008 Woodie Awards
Video related to this article is available below.Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: News
Student Murder Trial | Jury deadlocks again for third mistrial
Malinovskaya still in limbo as jury splits in favor of conviction
Jon Meza
Malinovskaya was just short of graduating when she was arrested in December 2004, and Hurley said she would like to return to Penn if possible.
Wharton spokesman Michael Baltes said in an e-mail that the University had not received information about the trial and would not comment on Malinovskaya's ability to return to Penn.
The jury deadlocked after 11 days of deliberations, which legal observers said was one of the longest deliberations in Delaware history.
After nine days without communication, the jury released a note on Wednesday asking about the differences between direct and indirect evidence. Judge James Vaughn answered their questions yesterday morning and the group returned to deliberations.
The court reconvened at about 1 p.m. when the jury told Judge Jerome Herlihy that they were deadlocked.
Herlihy asked the jury foreman if he believed any further deliberations would be "fruitful" and the foreman responded flatly: "No."
Vaughn, the presiding judge during the trial, returned from Dover, Del., to discuss the possibility of calling a mistrial.Wallace argued that Vaughn should issue an Allen Charge urging the jury to continue trying to reach a verdict, as was done in the second trial.
Maurer said doing so would be "unbelievably coercive" to the jurors in the minority, and it would be an "implicit suggestion that the court is not satisfied."
Vaughn agreed with the defense, discharged the jury and declared a mistrial.
Malinovskaya showed little emotion throughout the proceedings and was taken back into custody, where she will remain until her sentencing for the tampering-with-evidence charge.
A sentencing date has not been set.
Wharton spokesman Michael Baltes said in an e-mail that the University had not received information about the trial and would not comment on Malinovskaya's ability to return to Penn.
The jury deadlocked after 11 days of deliberations, which legal observers said was one of the longest deliberations in Delaware history.
After nine days without communication, the jury released a note on Wednesday asking about the differences between direct and indirect evidence. Judge James Vaughn answered their questions yesterday morning and the group returned to deliberations.
The court reconvened at about 1 p.m. when the jury told Judge Jerome Herlihy that they were deadlocked.
Herlihy asked the jury foreman if he believed any further deliberations would be "fruitful" and the foreman responded flatly: "No."
Vaughn, the presiding judge during the trial, returned from Dover, Del., to discuss the possibility of calling a mistrial.Wallace argued that Vaughn should issue an Allen Charge urging the jury to continue trying to reach a verdict, as was done in the second trial.
Maurer said doing so would be "unbelievably coercive" to the jurors in the minority, and it would be an "implicit suggestion that the court is not satisfied."
Vaughn agreed with the defense, discharged the jury and declared a mistrial.
Malinovskaya showed little emotion throughout the proceedings and was taken back into custody, where she will remain until her sentencing for the tampering-with-evidence charge.
A sentencing date has not been set.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 14
The right direction
posted 11/09/07 @ 9:54 AM EST
This is definitely a step in the right direction for the prosecution. Their case has gotten stronger each time. (11-1 for aquittal the first time, 6-6 the second, and 8-4 this time FOR conviction). (Continued…)
John
posted 11/09/07 @ 10:30 AM EST
If these morons couldn't prove anything three times, then they shouldn't be allowed to try a fourth trial. She should go free, maybe Bondar did it, try him. (Continued…)
JGH
posted 11/09/07 @ 11:06 AM EST
Let Malinovskaya go! Innocent until proven guilty is right. Three trials is enough.
Penn Alum
posted 11/09/07 @ 11:15 AM EST
Enough is enough. If the prosecution cannot prove someone guilty 3 times, there's no purpose of doing it the fourth time. That's cruel and unusual punishment for someone who hasn't even been convicted of the crime! To let this go on any further would be a mockery of our legal system. (Continued…)
RH
posted 11/09/07 @ 12:21 PM EST
I think that there's a very good chance that she did do it, but clearly there's "reasonable doubt" if three trials resulted in three hung juries. Because of the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, our judicial system works under the philosophy that it's less damaging for the occasional criminal to get away if it means that innocent people are safer from false conviction. (Continued…)
Ronald Ray-guns
posted 11/09/07 @ 12:25 PM EST
Why don't you filthy Russians create your own message board so that we don't have to read your self-serving diatribes, accusations of which family each poster is affiliated with, and poor handle of the english language. (Continued…)
Try her again
posted 11/09/07 @ 1:49 PM EST
A proven liar, an unfaithful girlfriend, a stalker, and now a convicted felon.. Reasonable doubt my foot.
Friend or relative screaming for more bloodshed? No amount of CAPS or fact-fabricating by you would erase blood from your sister's hands. (Continued…)
Meaning of reasonable doubt
posted 11/09/07 @ 2:28 PM EST
Yeah you guys are right, you must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. HOWEVER, in our justice system, a hung jury does NOT constitute reasonable doubt. (Continued…)
Alex
posted 11/12/07 @ 9:34 AM EST
This animal is guilty and she should be put to death by hanging for what she has done to a great girl like Irina that never hurt a fly. I hope there is another trial where justice will be served. (Continued…)
Alum
posted 11/12/07 @ 11:16 AM EST
Enough is enough. The government has used all the resources at its disposal 3 times, and can't get a conviction. Meanwhile, she has been sitting in jail for 3 years. (Continued…)
Post a Comment