Haq jury deadlocked on majority of criminal charges

Jurors weighing the fate of Naveed Haq said they are hopelessly deadlocked on all but a portion of one of the 15 criminal charges against the accused Jewish Federation gunman.

For the second time today, jurors halted their deliberations this afternoon to send a note to trial judge Paris Kallas. In that note, jurors said they've only reached a unanimous verdict on only one portion of one count and are deadlocked on the others.

The judge ordered the jury to continue deliberations.

The possibility of a mistrial looms greater with the jury's announcement and a verdict could come as early as tomorrow. Along with earlier questions the jury has posed to the judge, it appears they are having a difficult time agreeing on Haq's sanity at the time of the shootings.

If jurors are unable to agree unanimously on one or more counts, it could lead to a mistrial and likely a retrial.

The jury has been deliberating since May 23.

Haq, 32, is accused of shooting the six women after he burst into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on July 28, 2006. He is charged with one count of aggravated first-degree murder for slaying employee Pamela Waechter; five counts of attempted first-degree murder; one count of first-degree kidnapping; one count of unlawful imprisonment; one count of first-degree burglary; and six counts of violating the state's hate-crime law. He has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

In its note this afternoon, the jury of 12 said it remained "divided" on 14 counts and a portion of a 15th, but it didn't say on which count it had come to partial agreement.

Prosecutors argued that Kallas should require the jurors to continue deliberating. She agreed, saying that the length of the six-week trial, the complexity of much of the expert testimony — which centered on medical diagnosis, medications and mental-illness symptoms — and the number of counts warranted more than 5 ½ days of deliberation.

Defense attorney John Carpenter argued that requiring the jury to continue on would "be viewed as coercive."

"It's pretty unambiguous that they don't believe they're going to be able to reach a unanimous verdict on 14 counts," he said.

Citing case law, Kallas said trial judges "tread a narrow and dangerous course" when deciding how much time is enough for deliberations. If the jury sends another note stating they are unable to continue, she would then consider questioning them, she said.

This morning, the jury send a note to Kallas asking the trial judge for help in clarifying two key issues related to Haq's insanity plea.

Jurors are considering whether Haq was able to perceive the nature and quality of his acts, something of key importance in determining the sanity of a criminal defendant. The jury this morning asked Kallas for further definition of the words "nature" and "quality."

But Kallas declined to elaborate on the definitions already provided to jurors.

Attorneys on both sides agreed, saying the jury should be told to reread the court's instructions already provided. The judge also declined to answer the jury's second question, which was for additional guidance on how to define the terms "right" and "wrong."

Defense attorneys requested that Kallas specify to jurors that they could consider both a legal and a moral wrong. But, in agreeing with prosecutors, she declined, citing case law that states no definition of wrong and right should accompany jury instructions in an insanity defense.

To find Haq not guilty by reason of insanity, which would result in commitment to a mental hospital, the jury must find that at the time of the shootings, as a result of mental disease or defect, Haq was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the act with which he is charged; or that he was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to that act.

On Wednesday, jurors sent two questions to Kallas that indicated they were still mulling the first of 15 criminal counts against Haq on the third day of deliberations. In a note sent from the jury room, jurors asked the judge in the event they failed to reach a unanimous verdict on count one — aggravated first-degree murder or, alternately, second-degree murder — should they move on to count two, which is the first of five counts of attempted murder. Kallas agreed with prosecutors, who asked her not to give an answer.

Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Don Raz argued that telling the jurors to move on to count two might give the impression that they have spent enough time considering the first count."Given the length of the trial, the complexity of the issues, it would be too early to poll them," said Kallas, referring to the juror questioning undertaken after a jury announces it has either reached an impasse or arrived at a verdict.

Jurors also asked Kallas whether they could consider the 15 counts against Haq in any order they chose. The judge said they could, telling them simply to continue their deliberations in the order they see fit.