Tactically, this is fascinating.
To start with, practically he was facing *seven* charges, as for the first count, the jury could have reached a verdict for Murder 1, Murder 2 *or* Manslaughter.
Ordinarily I would suspect a “jury nullification” vote, but something is odd. On the other charges, the *attempted* murder charges of the other passengers, he could face 20 years on each charge.
And the jurors all agreed on those counts (likely not guilty). However, if just one juror had been nullifying the first count, the pro-conviction jurors could have “counter-nullified” the other charges, forcing them into a retrial as well.
They likely would have done so, if they were in a bad mood.
This makes me suspect that *most* of the jurors wanted to acquit on count 1, but just one or two demanded conviction.
I read this differently. They wouldn't acquit on minor charges and hang only on Murder 1. I suspect they convicted on all the other counts and are only hung as to whether the first count is Murder 1 or Murder 2.
But we should know pretty soon.
I think you’re right. Now they’re going to drag him through another trial ... next one, more high profile.
He’s over.