By day seven, the deliberations of a Toronto jury in a first-degree murder trial slid from “constructive” to “destructive,” according to the lone dissenting juror, accused by his peers of being biased, incoherent and quite possibly mentally ill.

However, the frustration expressed by the majority wasn’t enough to get the holdout juror struck off the jury, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Clark ruled Monday.

The deadlock went on until Wednesday morning, the ninth day, when Clark called a mistrial because the jury was still unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Little is usually heard about the goings-on in the jury room, since it is a criminal offence to reveal jury deliberations unless they are unveiled in court.

The letters to Clark from jury members offer a rare glimpse of the tears, frustration and hostility behind the jury room door.

But they may in fact reveal too much, according to the defence.

The letters show the majority of the jurors were in favour of acquittal, suggested defence lawyer Edward Royle in his final request for an investigation into Juror 5’s competence Wednesday.

Without a “full and fair” inquiry into the ability of Juror 5, the accused and observers of the court “could be left with the impression that (the accused) were deprived of an acquittal improperly,” Royle said.

Like the Crown, Clark disagrees that the letters he carefully redacted reveal the positions of the hung jury on the fate of Raphael Okezie and Henok Mebratu.

The two men face first-degree murder charges in the shooting of 21-year-old John Kang in a strip mall parking lot near Victoria Park Ave. and Finch Ave. in May 2011. Okezie was 20 at the time; Mebratu was 19.

Ten members of the jury came to the same decision after about three days of deliberations. (A 12th juror had been dismissed earlier after falling ill.)

Only Juror 5 continued to disagree.

He has an “an absolute lack of the ability to understand what we are here to do,” said the jury foreperson’s letter given to Clark on Sunday.

His “thought processes seem scattered at best,” and “his dialogue is what I would consider gibberish.”

“It was quite clear he had an opinion prior to the start of deliberations,” she told the court on Monday, when Clark reluctantly took the rare step of questioning the foreperson.

She attributes her fellow juror’s bias to his experience with an attempted robbery many years ago that he told them about.

He was in a car with his friend and their dates, when a car pulled up behind them, she recalled him saying. Some men with baseball bats came out and hit the car windows, jumped up on the hood and tried to rob them.

Juror 5 “would not or didn’t” answer her when she asked how that experience affects his decision in the murder trial, she said.

The foreperson added that some jury members with knowledge of mental health had shared concerns with her about Juror 5.

One juror told Juror 5 directly that his behaviour was similar to his own while dealing with a mental illness that is now treated, she said.

But when asked by Justice Clark about exactly which mental illness the foreperson was referring to, she said only, “the lack of ability to express oneself coherently.”

Juror 5 is “overly sensitive” and tends to get angry and upset, then lets that build up until verbally exploding, she added.

In a hastily written eight-page response to the foreperson’s letter, Juror 5 denied being biased and having any mental illness. Instead, he maintained he was only trying to do his due diligence, while being ganged-up on by his fellow jurors.

Juror 5 said the car incident 20 years ago was part of his life experience — something a juror can rely on when forming a decision.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

On Sunday, “numerous jurors aggressively accused me of being the sole cause of this lengthy deliberation,” he wrote.

There have been multiple breakdowns by jurors, including one time where he was reduced to tears, he added. He described himself as the “most rational and patient in the group who does not inject frustrations onto others.”

But now he no longer has “confidence that constructive deliberations can take place,” he wrote.

“I don’t think I can forgive many of them for … placing frustrations on me and concluding I have a mental problem.”

The letter prompted Royle, who was representing Okezie andMebratu’s lawyer, James Silver, to argue that Juror 5 should be discharged, a position opposed by the Crown.

The nearly illegible and rambling letter, full of material that had to be painstakingly redacted by Justice Clark, is “paranoid in certain respects,” Royle argued on Monday.

However, Clark said Juror 5’s defensive reaction was understandable, given that he had been “backed into the corner” for days.

The frustration of the jury is simply “human dynamics,” he said.

On Tuesday, Clark even briefly suggested allowing Juror 5 to sit in a different room from the rest of the jury.

After Royle made one final pitch for the inquiry to be reopened before the mistrial was called, Clark told the court that questioning Juror 5 and other jury members would be a “hopeless sideshow.”

Royle insisted that, without that inquiry, “it looks bad.”

Despite Clark’s explicit instructions, the jury continued to reveal details of their deliberations in their letters to him, he noted.

This creates the perception of bias by the court, Royle argued.

“I was visited with knowledge that … I had no desire to have and ought not to have had,” said Clark, who described the jury portion of the case as one of the most “exasperating and difficult” he’s ever dealt with.

He maintains that he was as neutral as possible in deciding whether Juror 5 should be discharged and is satisfied that there is no reasonable perception of bias.

“What we have here is a disagreement. A profound disagreement, but a disagreement at heart,” he said. “Juror 5 is perfectly capable of doing the job.”

A new trial will be scheduled.