Longest jury trial in american history

City of Long Beach. This was a civil trial that involved six months of testimony, followed by four and a half months of deliberation. Marbury v. Madison was one of the most important Supreme Court cases because it established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review the right to declare a law unconstitutional over Congress.

It also helped define the boundary between the executive and judicial branches of the United States government. There is no limit. A mistrial means that there was no verdict, so until the prosecutor decides ot stop trying the case, they can continue to go to trial.

It is unfortunate, but unless the jury agrees they can keep trying. Here are 45 of the most important cases the Supreme Court has ever decided. Madison Gibbons v. Ogden Worcester v. Georgia Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Dred Scott v. Sandford Munn v. Illinois Plessy v. Ferguson Lochner v. New York Predicting Verdicts Based on Length of Jury Deliberations Some believe short deliberations mean jurors have found the defendant guilty, while longer deliberations mean they are leaning towards acquittal.

A fast verdict could indicate sympathy with the defense or an overwhelming recognition of guilt. Perhaps it just means one side outperformed the other in the courtroom. A - In a criminal trial the jury verdict must be unanimous, that is all 12 jurors must agree. Jury members must decide for themselves, without direction from the judge, the lawyers, or anyone else, how they will proceed in the jury room to reach a verdict.

A jury that cannot agree on a verdict is called a 'hung' jury. To overturn a guilty verdict , the judge must look at all evidence presented most favorable to the prosecution. The judge can only grant judgment to overturn the verdict if the evidence clearly fails to establish guilt.

A judge will never interfere with a jury's decision and process unless there is a legitimate reason. The evidence included FBI surveillance tapes, testimony of 89 witnesses and thousands of documents and photos. But defense attorneys insisted the case was built on circumstantial evidence about minor offenses.

Defense attorneys complained that prosecutors alleged drug offenses but produced no drugs, and alleged loan-sharking, but produced no loan-sharking victims. Brown, the attorney who represented defendant James Fede. Defense attorneys claimed the evidence proved no more than that the defendants regularly met for lunch. Blakey said government prosecutors have in the past two years lost two other major anti-mob cases which, like this one, relied largely on the testimony of mob insiders.

The cases were those against Nicodemo Scarfo, alleged boss of a mob organization in Philadelphia, and against John Gotti, alleged head of a New York City crime family. Senate staff member. He noted that the government has had much better luck with cases that rely more heavily on wire-tap evidence, which juries find far more believable. A key prosecution witness was Nicholas Mitola, an admitted mob member. He spent several months on the stand, beginning in August, , discussing drug deals, bookmaking and other crimes.

Louis- based Monsanto of misconduct for failing to test for and remove dioxin in a 19,gallon shipment of raw material used in a wood preservative, which spilled over a half-mile area Jan. At issue was the connection between the spillage of less than a teaspoonful of the toxic substance, dioxin, and ailments the 65 people have complained about since the spill.

The plaintiffs contended they suffered fatigue, headaches, joint pains, and other ills because of exposure to dioxin, a byproduct of some herbicide and pesticide manufacturing. Some legal authorities say the jurors already may have set a record for deliberations, but they cannot be certain because they say no organization keeps such records.

The lengthy deliberations raise the possibility the trial, which has been called one of the longest in U.