The prosecution team heads outside for a break after the jury came back deadlocked on Tuesday, and then was given an Allen Charge by Judge George R. Bartlett III to continue deliberations. Pictured exiting the Schoharie County Courthouse is Tioga County District Attorney Kirk Martin, center front; Investigator Allen Ferrara, state police investigator of major crimes on the right, front; Senior Investigator Wayne Mouton, Tioga County, behind Ferrara; in the back, from left, Jeffrey Kullig, senior investigator, state police; William Gorman, lieutenant, state police; and Paul Clyne, special prosecutor. (Photos by Wendy Post)
Calvin Harris and his daughter, Cayla, take a break on Tuesday on the steps of the Schoharie County Courthouse as the jury continues to deliberate.
On Tuesday, and into the fourth day of deliberations in the Calvin Harris murder trial, the 12-member jury sent a note to the judge at approximately 12:15 p.m. that they were deadlocked, or couldn’t reach a unanimous decision regarding the verdict.
Upon this announcement, the judge delivered an Allen Charge to the jury – an instruction for them to continue deliberating. An Allen Charge, which isn’t always used, refers to a set of instructions given to a jury when, after deliberation, it is unable to decide on a verdict.
The purpose of the instruction is to encourage jurors to re-examine their opinions and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict if possible.
Judge George R. Bartlett III, when he delivered the charge at approximately 12:15 p.m. on Tuesday, asked the jury to start with a fresh slate, and to be open minded, yet consistent with their conscience.
The judge did not offer the jury a timeline for the Allen Charge, and some states don’t allow this law to be exercised as they feel it forces the jury to make decisions they are not ready to make.
But on Tuesday, the jury departed back into deliberations as charged, and then sent a note to the judge at 1:38 p.m., asking for nine exhibits and their supportive documents.
Key areas requested included blood evidence in the garage area, and a depreciation document for Calvin Harris’ dealership.
A brief argument ensued when the prosecution tried to include a document of ‘Show Cause’ related to the financial proceedings associated with the couple’s pending divorce.
Defense Attorney Bruce Barket did not feel the ‘Show Cause’ document should be included, and told the judge that this document was not what the jury requested.
At first, the judge was going to allow the evidence, and defense attorneys swiftly argued this, accusing the judge of trying to drive a conviction.
“That’s been their cornerstone to show motive,” said Barket of the request by the prosecution to include this document.
After a brief recess, by both the judge and the jury, Judge Bartlett changed his mind, and withdrew the “Show Cause’ document from the evidence requested.
The jury also requested a magnifying glass.
By approximately 3:40 p.m., the jury returned to deliberations.
Earlier in the day, the jury had asked for a re-read of testimony from Investigator Michael Myers regarding his interviews with Calvin Harris on Sept. 12, 2001 and Sept. 14, 2001.
These interviews related to questions asked of the defendant on Sept. 12, 2001 and regarding an interview surrounding financial matters that Myers had with Calvin Harris at his dealership on Sept. 14, 2001.
The jury also requested re-read of testimony from the former nanny, Pamela (Brock) Barnes regarding her interactions with Calvin Harris on Sept. 12, 2001.
By 5 p.m. the jury was dismissed, as they ended their fourth day of deliberations. The jury will resume their deliberations at 9:15 a.m. on Wednesday.
Calvin Harris, age 53 of Spencer, N.Y., is on trial for a third time for the alleged murder of his wife, Michele Harris, who disappeared in September of 2001. Two previous convictions were overturned, and this new trial ordered in Schoharie County. Neither her body nor a weapon has ever been found.
The prosecution maintains that Calvin Harris murdered Michele Harris on Sept. 11, 2001, and has based this circumstantial case on blood spatter found inside the Harris’ home, as well as motive and behavior.
The defense claims their client is innocent, and that the prosecutors failed to look at other potential suspects – mainly Stacy Stewart. The defense conducted an investigation of their own, but a third party culpability ruling prevented the defense from presenting what they considered their most damning evidence to the jury.
