As Lil Durk and his co-defendants await a verdict in the rapper’s murder-for-hire trial, people eager for any glimpse into what the deliberating jury might be thinking have been analyzing their notes almost like ancient texts—revisiting each brief request, considering different meanings and looking for possible clues.
But what exactly are jury notes, and what do they contain?
Jury notes are pretty much what the name suggests: messages sent by jurors to the judge during a case. They typically fall into two categories: requests to revisit specific testimony or evidence, or questions asking the judge to clarify a particular point of law.
Let’s begin with the latter. Jury instructions—essentially the guidelines jurors are given on what they must consider when reaching a verdict—can be incredibly detailed. In Durk’s case, the instructions span 56 pages. Every part was either agreed upon by both sides or disputed and ultimately resolved by the judge.
Some of the language could be viewed as favorable to Durk. One section states, “Mere presence at the scene of a crime or mere knowledge that a crime is being committed is not sufficient to establish that a defendant committed the crimes charged. A defendant must be a participant and not merely a knowing spectator.” Other portions could potentially be interpreted differently. For the most part, however, the instructions simply explain the charges and how jurors are allowed to consider the evidence.
Jury note 2, shown above, asks the judge to clarify a specific portion of the jury instructions. So, what exactly did the jurors want explained?
Section 18 of the instructions addresses Count 1 against the defendants—the allegation that they conspired to stalk Quando Rondo.
The charge consists of three elements: 1. Two or more people agreed to stalk him; 2. The defendant joined that agreement, or “became a member of the conspiracy,” as the instructions put it; and 3. At least one member of the conspiracy took a concrete step, or “performed at least one overt act,” toward carrying out the plan.
The jurors were seeking clarification on the meaning of “conspiracy,” how someone becomes a “conspirator,” and what qualifies as an “overt act.” An overt act, for instance, does not necessarily have to be illegal on its own.
Jury note 3 is below:
This one is fairly straightforward. The jury is asking for clarification on the meaning of the word “intent.”
The question relates to Count 3, which involves the charge of stalking Saviay’a Robinson, the victim of the fatal Los Angeles shootout at the center of the trial. Quando Rondo was allegedly the intended target.
“For each defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt,” the instructions state. “First, the defendant possessed the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate Saviay’a Robinson.” It was the use of “intent” in that section that prompted the jurors’ question.
Attorneys for both sides agreed that there was no need to add new language to the already lengthy and heavily disputed jury instructions. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald agreed as well. For note 2, Judge Fitzgerald simply read the relevant lines back to the jury. Regarding note 3, he explained that the law does not provide a specific definition of “intent,” so the jurors should understand and apply the term in its ordinary sense.
That covers jury notes 2 and 3. But what about note 1? That was the message the jury sent shortly before deliberations ended on Wednesday (September 9).
As you can see, the jury is asking to review “all” of the evidence “in digital form”—presumably making it much easier to go through than sorting through hundreds of pages individually.
Fitzgerald’s response, shown below, was that the digital evidence would be made available by 8:30 A.M. the following day, Thursday (September 10).
It’s difficult to know exactly what the request means. What is clear, however, is that the jurors are taking a close look at the details surrounding the charges and may be weighing differing interpretations among themselves. Whatever conclusion they ultimately reach, it appears the decision will come after careful consideration.
