By SHAILA DEWAN
The New York Times
Last Monday evening, after deliberating more than two hours, the jury reported to Judge Marcus Gordon that they were evenly divided and he dismissed them for the night. But after deliberating for nearly three more hours on Tuesday morning, they reached a unanimous verdict.
Many observers and pundits said that manslaughter may have been a compromise verdict, an inference that jurors disputed.
Troy Savell, a history teacher and coach, said he was initially in favor of acquittal, but his opinion changed as the jury deliberated. “I think the reasonable doubt was not there that he didn’t have anything to do with it,” Savell said.
Warren Paprocki said race did not play a role in the deliberations. One of the three blacks on the jury was vocally in favor of a murder conviction at first, Paprocki said, but he was not sure where the other two stood.
During straw polls, the jury sometimes voted with a show of hands and other times with a secret paper ballot, he said.
Willis Lyon, the only one of the three black jurors who could be reached by phone last Tuesday, said: “The only thing I’ll say to that regard is that we were as fair with Killen as we could have been. I think we gave him as fair a verdict on his behalf as was allowable.”
Reached by phone, Shirley Vaughan, the forewoman, said she was emotionally drained by the trial and reluctant to speak. “With the little amount of evidence that we had, we did the very best that we could,” she said. “It was very difficult. I feel really sad. I feel sad for everyone involved in it.”
Mark Duncan, the county district attorney, said he did not blame the jury for finding Killen guilty of a lesser charge than murder, pointing out that three of the four key witnesses were dead.
“I think it was asking a lot of a jury to convict a man based on testimony of people who they couldn’t see. All they had were their words on paper. So I can’t criticize the jury at all,” Duncan said.
His partner in the prosecution, state Attorney General Jim Hood, said that two witnesses that came forward since the case was reopened in 1999 had died, one by suicide and the other under questionable circumstances.
There were other obstacles for the prosecutors. Although seven of the original defendants, besides Killen, are still alive, they refused to testify before the grand jury in exchange for immunity, Hood said. If they had been called to testify at the trial, they could have claimed their right not to incriminate themselves, the prosecutors said.
Confessions and other statements about the crime were not admissible if the witness was not available for cross-examination, they said. Nor was the fact that Killen, in an unrelated case, had been convicted of telephone harassment, a felony, in 1975, because it happened after the killings.
Asked about the possible consequences of the trial, Hood said, “I’m just a prosecutor, I don’t pretend to be a sociologist. I will allow the historians to analyze what impact this trial may have on this community and the state of Mississippi and its reputation throughout the world.”
Jurors, on the other hand, said they were keenly aware of the significance and symbolism of the trial.
“I felt dispirited last night because of the six-six split,” Paprocki said. “I was very concerned that in the event of a hung jury that it would just reinforce the prejudicial stereotypes that have been attached to Philadelphia and Neshoba County. I was very much saddened by the fact.”
But the day of the verdict, he said, “Folks that had been fairly well saying no, they just couldn’t convict him, said, ‘Well, manslaughter.’ I don’t know what happened. It was fairly dramatic. It made quite an impression on me.”
Ariel Hart contributed reporting for this article from Atlanta.
