Harold Turner: Why Not "Not Guilty" After First Two Trials?

Here's something I have never understood. In a criminal case, the government has the burden of proof. It must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. To do that, all jurors must agree. In other words, it takes a unanimous verdict to convict a man. Anything less amounts to a failure on the part of the government. The defendant need not prove anything, we say. So why is it that when the government fails to persuade all of the jurors of a man's guilt that he is not acquitted? Failure is failure, correct?

I was reminded of this gnawing sense of absurdity while reading about the Harold C. Turner case. He was tried three times for threatening three federal judges. Jurors were unable to reach a verdict in the first two trials. But the third time was a charm for the government. It wasn't so charming for Mr. Turner, who now faces up to ten years in federal prison.

Turner was displeased when three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a ban on handguns. He wrote on a blog page that "[i]f they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other judges will act the same way." The judges "deserve to be killed," he went on to say. He also posted photos of the judges, together with their office addresses. Of course, the Supreme Court later reversed the Seventh Circuit, overturning the Chicago hand-gun ban at issue.

This is menacing stuff.

The first jury to hear the case rejected the govnerment's case by a vote of nine to three, with the majority voting to acquit Mr. Turner, who argued that he had not issued a directive, but had, instead, merely engaged in critical speech. The government did not call the three judges as witnesses in the first trial. The government failed to prove its case.

At the next trial, the judges, Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook and William Bauer, did take the stand. But still, jurors could not agree, although it is unclear what the vote was in that case. Call it strike two for the government.

But Mr. Turner's luck ran out at the third trial last week. Jurors returned a quick verdict against the white supremacist. All 12 jurors agreed the government had proven its case.

Threatening prosecutions are unusual when the threat is not conveyed to the target. In this case, it is unclear that three busy judges ever really took the time to read Mr. Turner. Quite frankly, I suspect the tenor and content of his prose did not exactly make the judicial radar in Chicago.

But it did catch the eye of prosecutors, who dug in three times to make their point.

Protecting robust speech is important, and I concede that Mr. Turner's speech is troubling. But is it threatening when a blogger pops off? Or is it more threatening when the government prosecutes a man for engaging in mencacing speech absent any evidence that the speech was uttered in the presence of the intended target?

From time to time folks threaten me. It goes with the turf in a criminal law practice. I don't worry much about the folks who talk smack, especially those who do so by way of blogs or other public venues. The ones you worry about are the silent types. Those are the bullets you'll never see coming.

But really, why wasn't Mr. Turner released after the first trial, the one in which the government failed to prove its case by the requisite standard? Don't tell me the lack of a unanimous verdict resulted in no verdict. If it takes a unanimous jury to yield a not-guilty verdict, then it is the case that we are requiring the defendant to prove something: namely, that he is not guilty. The government's failure ought to be enough to render a not guilty verdict.
Comments (3)
Posted on August 19, 2010 at 7:35 am by J. Sterling Ellison
I imagine that if the persons addressed in Turner'...
I imagine that if the persons addressed in Turner's speech and postings weren't judges, but rather "average" citizens, he wouldn't have been charged with a crime in the first place. I don't know if I agree that a hung jury should perhaps be considered a verdict of "not guilty", if only because I have no faith whatsoever in the criminal "justice" system as it now stands. I should hope that my fate is NEVER in the hands of a jury OR a prosecutor. But what makes this case bizarre is Turner's former role as a paid FBI informant, enlisted to supposedly monitor the kinds of so-called "extremist" groups that Turner proudly speaks to.

Posted on August 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm by Jonathan Hansen
Well, gee Norm, you are, of course, right. But the...
Well, gee Norm, you are, of course, right. But the ability to retry a case because of a hung jury has been around for a long time, and the Supremes, in their infinite wisdom and religious belief in stare decisis (notwithstanding those cases where "the decision was wrong when it was decided and it is wrong now"), have continued to uphold this in a long line of cases.
I think sometimes SCOTUS is presented with an issue when first discovered, and makes a judgement well before all the issues are known and the ramifications and conflicts with other decisions are realized and analyzed. In retrospect, the implications of the decision can show that it was ill conceived, but there's the stare decisis principle, too. I have just read some of these cases, and it's pretty clear that "manifest necessity" should not include a trial that terminates with a hung jury; the government had a clear shot at proving their case, and didn't. It's not like the trial had to terminate because the courthouse was demolished by a lightning bolt. However, contrary to the often touted intent of the Constitution to bias trials in favor of the accused to counter the overwhelming power of the Government, the Supremes allow unconscious wisps of mental bias to color their decisions, so in US v Perez, they state the "ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated", when, in actuality, it's exactly the opposite.
So we end up in this situation: where a defendant can be repeatedly retried if the juries continue to hang, in pretty clear contrast to the straightforward meaning of the double jeopardy clause, and makes no sense. Even if juries are voting randomly, this approach increases the possibility of an eventual conviction of a defendant who is innocent or the evidence is insufficient, in contradiction to the principles underlying the Fifth Amendment.
I suppose it's pretty clear that my opinion is that SCOTUS should just bite the bullet, and go with "it was wrong when it was decided and it's wrong now", but, it ain't gonna happen...

Posted on August 15, 2010 at 1:41 pm by Jeff Gamso
Sure, if you want to have these things make sense....
Sure, if you want to have these things make sense. But as Rehnquist told us in Richardson v. United States (1984), "The case law dealing with the application of the prohibition against placing a defendant twice in jeopardy following a mistrial because of a hung jury has its own sources and logic."

Special logic. That's the secret. It's what makes it possible for the Government always to win.
For Display:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Comment must be approved,
then will show on this page.

How many sides does a square have?

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website


Law Firm Website


I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis


Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video