SAN JOSE – Just hours before a mistrial was declared in the sexual assault trial of San Jose State’s former head athletic trainer, the federal judge called the deadlocked jurors back into the courtroom and urged them to continue deliberating in good faith. The behind-closed-doors drama that unfolded in the jury room was described as “extremely unusual” by a national jury expert, as only a small percentage of federal criminal trials result in hung juries. In this particular case, the jury was heavily divided, with 11-1 in favor of guilt on one charge and 10-2 in favor on the remaining five. The fact that the holdouts were both women while all four men were convinced of the defendant’s guilt added to the complexity of the situation. The tension among the jurors was evident in the 14 notes sent to the judge, expressing concerns of coercion and bullying. Ultimately, after four days of deliberations, the mistrial was declared.
The unexpected outcome of the trial disrupted what was supposed to be the final chapter in a 14-year saga surrounding San Jose State’s mishandling of numerous complaints against the head athletic trainer. Jurors entered deliberations with the majority already convinced of the defendant’s guilt based on allegations of groping and fondling female athletes. Efforts were made to persuade the lone holdout juror, but she remained steadfast in her belief of the defendant’s innocence. Tensions continued to escalate, and the situation worsened when one juror questioned the mental state of Juror No. 1, leading her to stop participating in deliberations.
The question now is whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office will retry the case or offer a plea deal. Similar cases have seen mixed outcomes, with some charges resulting in guilty verdicts while others were left unresolved. Legal analysts suggest that a retrial in this case may be likely, given the strength of the prosecution’s case and the anomalous behavior of the holdout jurors. The process of selecting a new jury will scrutinize potential jurors’ backgrounds and beliefs to ensure a fair trial.
The presiding juror, Jeff Pickett, expressed sadness and frustration with the outcome, particularly for the victims involved. He emphasized the importance of a fair justice system and the impact of individual experiences and beliefs on trial outcomes.