Days of ‘passion’ as jurors debated
THE JURORS in the second Etan Patz case, like their predecessors in 2015, squabbled their way through long, contentious days of deliberations.
The difference this time — they convicted Pedro Hernandez of killing the 6-year-old SoHo boy.
“The trial was long and there was a lot of information,” explained jury foreman Tommy Hoscheid after the Tuesday verdict came following nine days of deliberations.
“Deliberations were difficult, but I think we had constructive conversations based in logic that were analytical and creative and adaptive and compassionate — and ultimately kind of heartbreaking.”
Juror Cateryn Kiernan confessed the conversation became difficult at times — but said the dozen jurors found common ground.
“There had to be a divide for us to debate that long,” said Kiernan. “We approached it logically and compassionately. We were very nervous about making the wrong call.”
Members of the panel declined to reveal the number of jurors who had initially called for conviction or acquittal, noting only that the jury had a lot to consider.
“There was a lot of passion,” said juror Turner Bruce, 40. “We wanted to be accurate, so there were moments of disagreement. We worked together to come around and make the right decision.”
Juror Mike Castellon said he was unimpressed with the case presented by the Hernandez defense team.
“The defense threw a lot of theories out there,” he said. “I call it spaghetti on the wall. Sorry, Harvey” — referring to defense attorney Harvey Fishbein.
Castellon said the jurors agreed Hernandez suffered from psychiatric issues, but said that did not merit an acquittal. “He could tell right from wrong,” said Castellon. “He could tell fantasy from reality . . . . (We) spent a lot of time hearing from a hell of a lot of expensive doctors we didn’t need to hear from.”