Jury asks to continue deliberations on Monday after juror indicates they are not willing to return guilty verdict for former police officer Michael Slager

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

The jury in the murder trial of former police officer Michael Slager, who shot and killed unarmed African American Walter Scott as he ran away, is at deadlock after a single juror indicated during dramatic scenes in court they were unwilling to find the 35-year-old guilty.

The jury, consisting of 11 white people and one black person, will now continue deliberations on Monday, drawing the monthlong trial in South Carolina into a fifth week. If their decision is not unanimous a mistrial will be declared, leaving prosecutors to decide whether to pursue a retrial.

The former North Charleston police officer has been charged with murder and manslaughter after shooting Scott, 50, five times from behind as he ran away with his back turned. The incident, which occurred in April 2015, was caught on video by a witness, propelling the case into the global spotlight.

The release footage has been cited by advocates as among the clearest evidence of the fatal consequences of racially biased policing in the US.

On Friday, after over 14 hours of deliberations, the jury’s foreman indicated in a note to South Carolina judge Clifton Newman that they would not be able to reach a unanimous decision.

“It is clear that jurors will not be able to come to consensus,” the note read.

The jury then returned a second time in the afternoon indicating it was still deadlocked, with a unanimous decision hinging on just one juror.

During tense scenes in the courtroom, a note from that single juror was read aloud by Newman. “Judge, I understand the position of the court, but I cannot with good conscience consider a guilty verdict,” the juror wrote. “I expect those who hold opposing views not to change their minds because they are good honest people.”

In a subsequent note sent by the foreperson, it was stated that the juror wanted “to leave” as they were “having issues”.

Under South Carolina law a jury cannot be sent out to deliberate again after it has returned for a second time with no verdict, unless it requests “further explanation of the law”.

The jury’s foreperson made that request to Newman. Slager’s defense team have moved for a mistrial, while the state prosecution urged the judge to provide the jury with the explanation it requested.

After a brief recess, Newman indicated he would not declare a mistrial and requested a note from the jury asking precisely what explanation of the law was required.

“At this stage of things, with the jury indicating a willingness and interest ... it would be improper for the court to declare a mistrial,” Newman said.

A foreperson for the jury then told the judge in a note that “they [the jury] are beat and need some time. We will have our questions at the time.”

The jury’s request for explanation likely relates to an earlier application on Thursday made by the jury requesting clarification on the legal distinction between “fear” and “passion”, the potential difference between a claim of justifiable self-defense, which Slager’s legal team have argued throughout, and a manslaughter conviction, which would find that Slager unlawfully killed Scott in the heat of passion.

Newman had declined to provide the jury guidance, telling them on Friday morning that it was “solely for you” to decide.

In response to the first declaration of deadlock, Newman called the jury back into the court room and urged them, under a so-called Allen charge, to continue deliberations and push for a decision.

“It isn’t always easy for two people to agree so when 12 people must agree it must be more difficult,” he said.

“You have a duty to make every reasonable effort to reach a unanimous verdict,” the judge said. “Discuss your differences with an open mind.”

Newman warned that a split decision would result in a mistrial meaning that “at some other time I will try this case with some other jury where you now sit … we will go through this whole process again”.

After the day’s dramatic hearing in court, members of the Scott family said during a short press conference that they were hopeful the remaining juror would change their mind.

“We feel the prayers. We feel the presence of God. And we know that God has been moving in our favour. It’s been a long day. It’s been a tough day. But it’s not over,” said Anthony Scott, Walter’s brother.

With reference to the book of Psalms, Scott continued in tears: “Joy will come in the morning. Joy will come. We know that we are going to receive our joy, because God say so.”



The Scott family’s attorney Chris Stewart echoed Scott’s feelings of hope, adding: “This is not a black family against Michael Slager. This is the world against Michael Slager.”

On Wednesday, Newman allowed the jury to consider the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, meaning an unlawful killing that occurred without “malice” but rather in the heat of passion after provocation. Slager had originally been charged with murder.

Voluntary manslaughter carries a sentence of two to 30 years in prison, while a murder sentence carries 30 years to life in prison.

The trial has been characterised by an aggressive defence from Slager’s lawyers, who unsuccessfully attempted to have the pivotal video struck out as evidence and then accused the eyewitness who filmed it, Feidin Santana, of being ideologically opposed to law enforcement.

During closing arguments Slager’s lead defense lawyer, Andrew Savage, unleashed a tirade against the media, arguing his client had become a “poster boy” for perceived police brutality around the US and placed blame for the incident on Scott, a father of four, for his “felonious conduct”.

The prosecution have argued consistently that the evidence contained in the video alone is overwhelming and proves Slager killed Scott unlawfully.

Slager has also been indicted on federal charges of violating Scott’s civil rights, which also carries a maximum sentence of life.

