During their deliberations, jurors "presented their stances" to each other, referred back to evidence presented in the case and to Williams' instructions about the charges, and looked through their own notes from the trial, according to the juror who agreed to be interviewed.
The juror declined to discuss the points of contention in the panel's deliberations.
At one point, the jurors asked the court to more clearly define "evil motive" and "bad faith," but were told that "the court has provided all of the information it can."
The way in which juries split on individual charges, as well as the specific issues that divided them, can affect subsequent decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys — including whether to retry a defendant, drop the charges, or offer or accept a plea deal, experts said.
Jurors often begin deliberations with an initial vote. Paula Hannaford-Agor, director of the Center for Juries Studies, said that vote can be more instructive than the final tally. She said the initial size of the "minority faction" of jurors — those voting against the majority position — is more predictive of whether a subsequent jury might also hang, according to her research.
A larger minority faction in the initial vote is harder to overcome to reach a unanimous decision.
"If you've just got one or two people who are initially holding out, they are much more likely to capitulate," she said.
Still more useful would be information about the most heavily-disputed theories in the case, and those issues the jurors agreed on, Hannaford-Agor said.
"What are the competing arguments that are being made in the jury room? What seemed to resonate with people? What gave people pause?" she said.
Gerard P. Martin, a veteran defense attorney and former federal prosecutor who is not involved in the cases, said prosecutors must be heartened by the fact that the jury was leaning toward conviction on the lesser charges. He said he doesn't believe prosecutors will be deterred by the final vote because they likely understood that securing a manslaughter conviction would be difficult.
Prosecutors could amend the charges but have given no sign that is their intention. Martin said the defense should see more reasons for optimism.
"All they need is one to say 'no,'" he said. "I would hang in there if I were the defense lawyer."
Attorneys for the six officers had argued before Porter's trial that an impartial jury could not be seated in Baltimore because city residents had been exposed to publicity about the case and may fear more unrest if they acquitted the officers.
Williams rejected that idea. In December, the judge, prosecutors and Porter's attorneys questioned about 150 potential jurors over two days before selecting a 12-member panel.
The jurors — all of whom indicated they were familiar with the case — weren't supposed to talk to anyone about the case during the trial. They weren't supposed to discuss the case with each other until they began deliberating.
Hannaford-Agor said she was not surprised jury deliberations in Porter's trial turned emotional.
The fact people across the country are following the proceedings, she said, likely created an "additional weightiness" around the decision in the jurors' minds.
"A lot of jurors really feel like they've failed when they can't come to a decision — that this was something they should have been able to do and they just failed to do it," she said.
