SILVERTON – After 11 hours of jury deliberations, the eighth day of the McFarland trial ended without a verdict at San Juan County Courthouse, where Silverton native Michael McFarland stands accused of manslaughter, negligent homicide and second-degree assault in the alleged killing of his wife, Jessica McFarland, at their Silverton home last summer.
Before jurors started deliberating Tuesday afternoon, the trial had riveted Silverton residents, who attended closing arguments in droves. But on Wednesday as the jury deliberated for the second day, the mood in the courthouse was dour and anxious, and the only people still in the gallery were the trial’s most dogged spectators: the families and close friends of the accused and the victim.
With no word from the jury by 4 p.m., lawyers involved with the case started warning that it might be four or even five more days before the jury could render a verdict.
Then, in the 11th hour of deliberations – just minutes before 5 p.m. – the jury submitted a written question to the judge: “Do we need to find Michael not guilty of manslaughter unanimously before we find Michael guilty of criminally negligent homicide?”
The judge responded in writing: “You can find the defendant guilty of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, but not both. You should render the verdict to which you can unanimously agree.”
The jury is going to reconvene at 8:30 a.m. Thursday.
In an interview, 6th Judicial District Attorney Todd Risberg said Michael McFarland could face anywhere from two to six years in prison for manslaughter, one to three years for negligent homicide and five to 16 years for second-degree assault.
Risberg said a domestic-violence conviction would require that McFarland enroll in a domestic violence-treatment program when he is released from prison.
In the morning, defense attorney Joel Fry brought up concerns about one juror, who the lawyers later talked to in chambers – apparently without event – while another juror asked to speak to District Judge Greg Lyman in private.
Lyman said the request made him “uncomfortable.” But after speaking with the juror, Lyman told the lawyers that the juror was worried about another juror, who he suspected of bringing in “legal briefs.”
Lyman said he explained to the complaining juror that the “legal brief” might well be allowable so long as it was just a summary of the other juror’s opinions based on evidence he’d seen in trial, but it might be problematic if the “legal brief” was, in fact, the product of independent investigation.
Lyman said this explanation seemed to “satisfy” the upset juror.
Family members of both the victim and the accused sat in the courthouse at 8:30 a.m. as jurors shuffled in.
When the jury asked to review evidence, such as the recording of the 911 call made by the McFarlands’ neighbor Ladonna Jaramillo, Judge Lyman asked the public to leave.
The families sat at either ends of the hallway on the court’s second story.
cmcallister@durangoherald.com
