I just came from a hearing about 30 minutes ago (its 11:54 AM PST as I am writing this) that almost ended this trial in my favor, if that is defined as not being convicted.
About 10:23 AM the jury sent a note to the judge stating that, "9 jurors have concerns that statements made by juror #11 during deliberations and ongoing behavior are not allowing us to move toward a consensus. We have reached an impasse in moving forward. 11 jurors are asking the judge to advise us on our next steps."
My attorney, me, the prosecutor, and the judge and court personnel assembled in the courtroom at 10:53 AM to handled the matter. The judge then said another question had been received about five minutes before, which is described below.
'A juror wants to know if a juror may substitute the following language for element #2:
That the defendant was not given "justification to act" (with the words in quotes circled and the word "authorize" the substitute word pointing to that circle) to "retrieve data from" with the words in quotes circled and the word "access" the substitute word pointing to that circle) the computer system or electronic database'
So, in effect, the juror wanted to know if the sentence:
"That the defendant was not given justification to act to retrieve data from the computer system or electronic database."
Meant the same as:
"That the defendant was not given authoriz(ation) to access the computer system or electronic database."
The judge then said she thought that the court could give the jury no further instructions when the jury indicated it was at an impasse.
At about 11 AM, the judge, my attorney, and the prosecutor came to an agreement on how to proceed. A response was sent to the jury approved by all parties that told them the answer to the second question was (paraphrasing) that "you have been given the law of the case. If this answer gives you the answer to the first question you submitted, then continue deliberating. Otherwise notify the bailiff if you are still at an impasse."
The judge and prosecutor then retired to their offices. Me and my attorney stayed in court as she thought the answer from the jury would be known in a few minutes. She was right. About five minutes later the jury told the Bailiff they were still at an impasse as noted in their first question. When the prosecutor got back into the courtroom about 11:19 AM, all parties thought there was a mistrial and that only the formalities of dismissing the jury remained. The judge had instructed both sides how she was going to handle dismissing the jury by thanking them personally in the jury room without either the prosecutor or my attorney present, and where they should stand in case a juror or jurors wanted to talk with them after she dismissed them.
But first the jury was brought out to put their impasse on the record before they could be excused to go home. When they were seated, the judge asked the presiding juror if the jury was at an impasse. He stood and said that he thought they were, and that any further deliberations he thought would be fruitless. Then the judge asked the jury as a whole if they agreed with the presiding juror that they were at impasse and that further deliberations would be fruitless. Two jurors then raised their hands! Each in turn stood up and told the judge that they thought that further deliberations could cause them to reach consensus. One of the two was juror #11, the juror that 9 other jurors had asked the judge for guidance in dealing with because of statements he made and "ongoing behavior" did not allow them to go forward.
The judge then released them to the jury room to continue deliberations! The judge (I believe), my attorney, and the prosecutor were surprised at the turn of events.
Both my attorney and the prosecutor talked with each other and agreed they had never seen such a thing before (a juror or jurors disagreeing that the jury was at impasse in such a situation)!
The deliberations of day 4 continue. The fact that it is Friday may be weighing on some juror's minds.
A comment received on this blog entry:
It is unbelievable to see the level of ignorance exhibited by individuals commenting on this situation. Compliance to the law goes to the "ethos" that anyone individual, entity or company keeps. Gerald Eastman exposed that The Boeing Company has a disregard for compliance to the law and regulations of the U.S.A. and threatens the public trust and safety in its actions.
He was an authorized user of Boeing systems. He did not profit or sell any information to any recipient. He did report to the proper authorities within his company and to the U.S. Government and now even has substantiation that the FAA is corrupt and complacent with airline carriers and in no doubt with Boeing. A judgement of innocent is due in this travesty lest other whistleblowers be punished the same way in the future, that is the danger of what is happening in the U.S.A. and the world right now.
(see: Full Committee - Critical Lapses in FAA Safety Oversight of Airlines: Abuses of Regulatory "Partnership Programs").
Gerald Eastman did what a whistleblower is supposed to do, expose fraud, corruption and deceit put upon the public despite the ignorance and lack of courage of others at his company and those of you who comment negatively on his blog.
Another comment on this blog entry:
What is "secret" about the 787 production sites? What is not or would not be proprietary about knowing where the production sites are? It was and is now well known that Boeing is simply assembling the 787 and doing very little production themselves in the U.S. The 787 is a foreign plane being "Lego'd" together by Boeing with minimal U.S. content and staff.
What is "secret" about production rates on the 747 or 777? It's no different from what is published in common financial magazines and 10K filings by companies.
These are all public domain types of information, pertinent to the shareholders and public as a whole. Fraud comes into play where Eastman reported Export Violations of transfers of technology from the B-2 to the 787. It comes from the release of Boeing's own confession to the effect of knowing that they have a "culture of silence" as stated by General Counsel Doug Bain.
What is "illegal" about what Eastman did? What did he "break into" since he was an authorized user on Boeing's systems? Are you saying that anytime a person were to discover any crime that a witness can't come forward and report it? What if a murderer leaves a note on the coffee table that confesses a murder and you're a authorized guest in the home and see it on the coffee table, are you committing an illegal act by reporting it? Let's not lose focus here, this is a case about oppression and fear to future whistleblowers and being able to report crimes across all stratus of society.
Yet another comment on this blog entry:
Seems like Eastman is innocent since he was authorized to be on Boeing's systems and that he did not have intent to commit a crime.
Washington State Law/Washington State Legislature on Computer Trespass:
Computer trespass in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the first degree if the person, WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another; and
(a) The access is made with the intent to commit another crime; or
(b) The violation involves a computer or database maintained by a government agency.
(2) Computer trespass in the first degree is a class C felony.
[1984 c 273 § 1.]
Another comment from anonymous:
You are a Hero for both your commendable service as a citizen and for your service to our country as a veteran.
God Bless you and the example you set for all of us!
The Last Inspector