PAUL KRUSE CASE ENDS IN MISTRIAL
A mistrial has been declared in the case of former Blue Bell Creameries president and CEO Paul Kruse.
The 12-person jury announced on Monday that after deliberating for four days, a unanimous decision could not be reached on whether to convict or acquit Kruse on federal charges of conspiracy and fraud in relation to Blue Bell’s listeria outbreak in 2015. Ten of the 12 jurors voted not guilty.
Judge Robert Pitman stated in his order declaring a mistrial that members of the jury told the court they were “hopelessly deadlocked.”
Kruse was tried for one count of conspiracy and five counts of wire fraud on accusations that he concealed what the company knew about listeria contamination in some of its facilities. If convicted, each of the charges carried a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison.
Prosecutors argued Kruse was concerned that Blue Bell’s customers would be scared away from all of the company’s products if they learned of listeria contamination in certain ones. Kruse’s defense lawyers, however, said Kruse was doing his best with the available information at the time and that his intent was never to cheat customers.
The company pleaded guilty separately in 2020 to two misdemeanor counts of distributing adulterated ice cream products, paying a total of $19.35 million in fines, forfeitures and civil settlement payments.
Federal prosecutors can pursue another trial against Kruse, but they have not stated whether they intend to do so.
It will be interesting to see what the vaunted Department of Justice does. I’d suspect the US attorney is discussing this with folks higher up the chain of command. 10-2 to acquit is going to be a factor, but I’d suspect the DOJ will want to pursue this for political reasons. Id suspect another attempt at a plea deal will be made. The DOJ could care less about actual justice- it’s all about a win- putting another scalp on the lodge pole.
All that taxpayer money down the drain . Maybe the IRS can get involved since they have more agents on the way .
Ok so if 10 of the 12 jurors voted not guilty then how could they not come up with a unanimous decision, someone explain please.
Unanimous means 12 of 12 jurors would have to vote not guilty. In my experience of having served on a jury, there are jurors that will say with conviction they will NOT change their mind on their vote. The foreman will ask for their reasons for their opinion. Other jurors can try to review facts presented in an effort to sway them. But if after several votes the person will not budge, the foreman will notify the judge.
If the remaining 2 jurors refused to change their vote because they felt he was guilty then there is nothing that can be done. It’s not unanimous at that point, and you can’t force a juror to change their mind.
By definition “unanimous” means all 12 jurors must choose the same verdict, not simply a majority of them.
If you have 10 jurors say not guilty and 2 say guilty the jury cannot have a unanimous decision because of the 12 selected all have to be in favor or not in favor. Majority don’t count so jury is declared ineffective and mistrial declared. I hope the FED’s stop wasting taxpayers funds and let this be and go after real criminals soon.
Because the other two felt he was guilty, and weren’t changing their minds.
Hence… a deadlocked jury. Hence… a mistrial.
Unanimous requires that everyone votes one way or the other. Ten out of 12 is a. Large majority, but it is not unanimous.
A criminal jury must be unanimous, meaning all 12 must vote the same. 10 voting one way and 2 another is NOT unanimous. Without 12-0, there is a mistrial… as is the case here.
Unanimous means all must be in agreement.