Securities Law 360's Erin Marie Daly has this article ("Mistrial 'Unjust,' Say Attorneys For Symbol Execs") providing more details on the chaos (previously discussed here) that is the Symbol Technologies executives' criminal trial.

According to the article, one of the defense attorneys claims he sought permission from the court to poll the jury on “no fewer than three occasions” when the trial ended as to whether they had reached a verdict on any of the accused.  Prosecutors, however, say the attorney did so only after the mistrial motion had already been granted by the judge.

The article also contains the following passage quoting yours truly:

The defense's surprise move has baffled legal professionals, with court precedent for similar situations apparently murky, says Bruce Carton, vice president of Securities Class Action Services.

"I've never seen anything like this before," says Carton. "It's hard to believe that after a six-week trial, the jury's verdict could be so grossly misunderstood. The part that boggles my mind is that the jurors apparently came to the judge with a note saying they could not reach a decision. If you believe what the seven jurors are telling the defense lawyer, that note was completely misunderstood." If that is the case, says Carton, the situation amounts to a very unfortunate misunderstanding.

"If in fact the jury was trying to acquit, then somebody is at fault, and it's not the jury," he says.

In hindsight, of course, what I should have told the reporter here was, borrowing from the late Johnnie Cochran,

“If the jury votes for it…the Court must acquit!!”