Stevens trial judge weighs jury options

Jury deliberations, already marked by turmoil, were put on hold Friday while the judge paused to determine how to handle a grieving juror who had to leave town to attend her father's funeral in California.

Even if she's available after returning, however, it's possible deliberations wouldn't resume until Tuesday or even Wednesday. Such scheduling uncertainty could postpone a verdict in the Alaska Republican's corruption case until just days before he's on the ballot Nov. 4. For the first time in his 40-year Senate career, Stevens, 84, faces a competitive re-election bid, this time against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, a Democrat.

Friday morning, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told jurors that "everyone needs a day off now and then" and sent them home for the day at 9:50 a.m. Washington time without telling them why their fellow juror was gone.

Jurors have cheered in the past when Sullivan let them go home early, but this time, they didn't appear happy about the three-day weekend. The eight women and four men, who were about to begin their third day of deliberations, have been sitting in on the trial since jury selection began Sept. 22.

Although their short deliberations have been marked by theatrics, the jury problems appear to have little to do with their actual deliberations, which involve determining whether Stevens is guilty of making false statements on his Senate financial-disclosure forms. The senator is the highest profile figure to be charged in a broad investigation into corruption in Alaska politics.

On Wednesday, they sent the judge a note asking to go home early because they were stressed and they said they needed a "minute of clarity." The next day, 11 of the jurors complained that a 12th was "rude, disrespectful and unreasonable" and had engaged in "violent outbursts." They sent out a note asking if she could be replaced, although the judge appeared to diffuse the situation by reminding everyone to be civil.

By Thursday evening, the jurors had left for the day all smiles, but within an hour, a juror reported her father's death and the judge held an emergency hearing.

Sullivan will hold another hearing Sunday evening to see whether the grieving juror will be available to return. If not, he'll consider bringing in an alternate jury or going forward with just 11 jurors.

Sullivan said he was disinclined to add an alternate juror because the jury would have to start from scratch on deliberations, an option that the judge said would put the jurors in the same place as they'd be if they didn't start the proceedings again until later in the week.

However, he did bring in one of the alternate jurors to ask her whether she'd be available if needed. Sullivan asked her whether she'd spoken to anyone about the case or had formed an opinion on it. She said she hadn't talked about it, but she hesitated when Sullivan asked her whether she'd made up her mind yet.

"I paused because I wanted to think if I'd formed an opinion," the juror said, adding that she didn't think she had.

Sullivan also said he was reluctant to proceed with only 11 jurors, given the near-meltdown on the jury already. If the jury were to lose another juror it would have "major problems," Sullivan said.

Federal juries are allowed to proceed with fewer than 12 jurors and frequently go forward with just 11, but it is rare to have fewer. Eleven jurors decided the verdict in at least one of the other Alaska corruption cases - that of former state Rep. Tom Anderson of Anchorage, who was sentenced to five years in prison.

Prosecutors said Friday that in the Stevens case, they'd prefer to go with the alternate juror. They wrote in a brief that "alternates exist for situations precisely like the present one" and worried in court Friday that depending on one juror to move forward with the trial seemed risky.

"This is a lot placed on this juror," said Nicholas Marsh, one of the prosecutors on the Justice Department team.

Stevens' lawyers argued Friday morning in favor of waiting to see whether the juror could return, rather than calling in an alternate or proceeding with 11 jurors. If necessary, they told the judge, they would prefer to go forward with just 11 jurors.