The defense has accused jurors of not being impartial in their deliberations. Last week, I talked to the presiding juror, who explained how the jury approached the case for a story published Sunday in the Eagle.

Marten has set a hearing for 9 a.m. June 29 to take up the arguments.

The men were convicted in April of conspiracy under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. A sixth defendant was acquitted of racketeering charges but convicted of an ammunitions offense.

The jury convicted five of the six men of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO. The sixth was convicted on an ammunitions charge.

A case such as this doesn’t stop with the verdict, however. Since the trial, one man has been sentenced to 10 years. Defense lawyers began filing motions asking U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten to strike down the verdicts and questioning the deliberations by the jury.

This week, I talked to the presiding juror about those deliberations.

He said the lengthy legal instructions kept them from reaching their verdict for days, but that they carefully considered the charges. (He asked that his name not be used for his safety, because of the gang nature of the trial.)

Here’s what he said about his experience on the jury and the deliberations:

Last week, Marteaus Carter received a 10-year prison sentence. Carter didn’t go to trial. He pleaded guilty in February to one count of conspiracy to violate RICO. He also pleaded guilty to persuaded another adult person to travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution.

Other sentencing hearings are set in the coming months.

Meanwhile, I’m back to digging through court files and covering hearings live on Twitter.

As for the knee, I’m still limping but getting better.

An old high school sports injury finally caught up with me, and I’ll be recuperating from total knee replacement surgery for the next six weeks. You can monitor my recovery via Twitter, or from the sidebar on this page.

When I return in June, we’re planning a different approach to this blog that we hope will help people better understand the criminal justice system. Details will come soon, so stay tuned.

The Supreme Court should begin receiving the Carrs’ appeals by June. That’s when Jonathan Carr’s lawyer said she plans to file his appeal. His brother, Reginald Carr, has an even earlier deadline.

“This is very comparable to what we’ve had in other cases,” said Rebecca Woodman, who will represent Jonathan Carr’s appeal, on the length of time taken to file the legal papers.

The Kansas Supreme Court has extended the filing deadline for Reginald Carr 23 times, 19 for Jonathan.

“Yes, this last extension in Carr is the last,” Woodman said.

The time includes two years — from 2004 to 2006 — when all death penalty cases were put on hold, after the state’s highest court struck down the death penalty and the 1997 capital murder convictions of Michael Marsh. Marsh’s case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually restored the Kansas death penalty law.

Further court battles on the capital appeal of Gavin Scott put Kansas death penalty cases on hold again from January 2007 to May of 2008.

Marsh’s case was resolved this month — 13 years after the killings — only after the prosecutors decided not to continue pursuing the death penalty. He’s serving life in prison.

But cases where the death penalty is at stake require a higher standard of legal scrutiny. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said: “death is different.”

“Non-capital murder cases … do not generally involve the type or number of constitutional issues that are present in death penalty cases,” Woodman said.

The length of time and expense is why 10 states, including Kansas, have sought to vanquish the death penalty. New Hampshire lawmakers are the latest to abolish capital punishment.

Death penalty cases not only have to pass the state’s Supreme Court but then must pass scrutiny in federal courts.

After the Carrs’ first round of arguments are filed this spring, the appeals process could last years.

No one has been executed in Kansas for 44 years.

Frank DiMarino, dean of the School of Criminal Justice at Kaplan University, offers 10 tips for police to prepare for such “psychological offenses.”

1. Build strong bonds with the community, so that when a person with emotional instability is identified, the public feels confident in approaching authorities about their concerns.
2. Educate government offices and larger businesses in the same or similar tactics as in School shootings where a lockdown procedure is planned and practiced. Local law enforcement could provide the training.
3. Increase information sharing and collaboration among state and local communities, educators, mental health officials, and law enforcement to better provide care and detect, intervene, and respond to potential incidents of violence in the community.
4. Police departments need to create a point of entry for people in the community to contact them when they think a relative or friend is in trouble. Establish an alliance with the local or county-level mental health authority so that police can refer those who are at-risk. Determine what the police can and cannot do when confronted with an emotionally unstable person, or when such a person is reported to them, i.e. voluntary and involuntary commitment procedures.
5. Dispatchers should receive specialized training to obtain as much tactical information as possible when an active shooting is called in by victims or witnesses so they may help police in their handling of the situation.
6. Police departments, regardless of size, should be prepared to meet armed resistance from an individual who is committed to inflicting harm to a large number of people. Rapid Response training should be provided, and the necessary weaponry should be available, so as to not be in a disadvantage to the offender. The police department should also offer “Situational Awareness” training for all interested citizens. People who are trained to watch their surroundings and pick up on nuances that are out of place could aid the police early on with identifying suspicious activity.
7. Encourage and support police officers to pursue education in psychology courses that can prepare them to navigate complex murder and suicidal offenders. The law enforcement community can encourage professionals to take courses that help them handle these incidents and improve their performance in the everyday life of being an officer. Courses could include forensic psychology, abnormal psychology, psychology for law enforcement, crisis intervention, juvenile psychology, deviance & violence, and family & domestic violence.
8. Make it attractive to recruit and retain police officers with at least two years of college or a bachelor’s degree. Research shows that higher educated police officers are less inclined to use force, utilize complex problem solving strategies, and have a greater understanding of the community for which they serve.
9. Assure that your state or local law enforcement department is receiving its share of $2 billion from the Justice Assistance Grants administered through the United States Department of Justice. These funds can be used to hire additional sworn officers and civilian employees, to train them how to respond to potential violent situations and support citizens in trouble, as well as to purchase equipment and supplies.
10. Review the procedures for entering accurate information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to assure that persons who legally ineligible to purchase firearms are accurately identified. Information such as mental competency and civil orders regarding mental health may prevent persons from purchasing firearms if their background check reveals ineligibility.

The verdict form they have to fill out covers more than 30 criminal counts. Jurors were told in lengthy legal instructions that they have to consider each count separately. That includes the complex Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law, known as RICO, that serves as the basis for the charges.

The jury in a similar RICO trial in November took five days to reach its verdict. That case had three defendants. This trial has six men charged with racketeering and other crimes.

Developed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the list suggests questions to ask someone calling in a bomb threat, including:

• Where is the bomb?
• What does the bomb look like?
• What is your name?

While most bomb threats are only threats, authorities say it’s a serious federal offense to make one. The ATF also suggests that people record as much information as possible about the caller’s mannerisms. The checklist is similar to this one provided by the U.S. Marshals Service.

U.S. Marshals Service Bomb Threat Checklist

The jury returned their verdict on lesser charges for Carlos Chavez-Aguilar, 22, who had gone on trial accused of second-degree intentional murder.

Second-degree unintentional murder is a reckless action taken with extreme disregard for human safety. Voluntary manslaughter is a sudden death occurring in the heat of passion.

Chavez-Aguilar is set for sentencing May 15 before Sedgwick County District Judge Joseph Bribiesca. Chavez-Aguilar’s lawyer, Brad Sylvester, said he plans to ask for a new trial, after raising objections to Bribiesca allowing gang testimony.

Police said a fight broke around 2 a.m. on Aug. 23 in the parking lot of the El Alacran Club at Harry and Seneca. An officer with the Wichita police gang unit testified that members of the Surenos 13, Vato Loco Boys and North Side Gangsters started the fight.

A pickup truck drove around the corner of the building and through the parking lot, killing Juan Martinez, 22, and Marilyn Arreola, 54. Carlos Chavez-Aguilar also was convicted of aggravated battery in the injury of a third person.

Rene Chavez-Aguilar, 20, charged with driving the truck, faces trial April 27.

(Note: Brad Sylvester and I are not related)

“We have jury instructions longer than the Psalms, except there is no poetry in them,” defense lawyer Paul McCausland said of the jury instructions given Friday by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten.

That was just one of several biblical references by defense lawyers trying to explain complicated charges stemming from RICO, the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act.

Lengthy legal instructions frequently lose jurors with complex vocabulary, grammar and legal rhetoric, experts say.

“Bad jury instructions aren’t just ignored, they can also actively confuse jurors,” said Anne Reed, a trial lawyer and jury consultant from Milwaukee, in a discussion on Twitter.

While she hadn’t seen the packet for this trial, I asked Reed her definition of “bad” jury instructions.

“Frankly most instructions qualify,” she answered.

Dennis C. Elias, a social psychologist who runs a Phoenix jury consulting firm and blogs about juror issues, agreed that jurors don’t always understand complicated instructions.

“Jurors don’t share vocab, context, logic path, or meaning with authors of instructions,” Elias tweeted. “Confusion reigns as result.”

As sleet peppered the windows of the federal courthouse, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten halted the trial and sent jurors home under the threat of more severe winter storms this afternoon.

Marten spent nearly 2 1/2 hours reading 89 pages of legal instructions, upon which jurors will base their deliberations.

With the storm expected to pass this weekend, Marten recessed the trial until 9 a.m. Monday for lawyers to present their closing arguments.

The charges stem from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO.

We will continue live courtroom updates Monday, via Twitter.