More questions from jury deliberating Judge Ferguson murder case

Another day and more questions from the jury deliberating the fate of Orange County Judge Jeffrey Ferguson, accused of murdering his wife.

Thursday morning, the jury sent out its 10th note since it began deliberating Wednesday afternoon, Feb. 26. This time the note came from a single juror - a white man who appears to be in his 30s.

"Can we ask counsel for further clarification on what 'deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life' means? What I am wondering is [if] deliberately acting with conscious disregard means the defendant had a 'specific intent and mental state' that is the equivalent of saying, 'I don't care if the person dies.'"

Ferguson, 74, shot and killed his wife on Aug. 3, 2023, during a drunken domestic dispute. He claims the gun discharged accidentally, while prosecutors point to text messages that appear more incriminating, including one to his court clerk: "I lost it. I shot her. I won't be in tomorrow. I'll be in custody." People v. Ferguson, 23NF1975, (O.C. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 11, 2023).

Throughout the more than five days of deliberations, the jurors have appeared stuck on the definition of a "willful act."

Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Eleanor J. Hunter, who is presiding over the trial in Santa Ana, took the extraordinary step of calling counsel back to court to give additional arguments on what constitutes a "willful act."

But Wednesday's arguments didn't answer the jurors' questions.

The man who asked another question on Thursday morning, had a second one: "Do we consider voluntary intoxication for this? The reason is section 3426 states we only apply it to 'specific intent to kill,' which is express malice. Does it mean we cannot consider intoxication at all for implied malice?"

Hunter responded to the two questions by reminding jurors of the legal distinction between express and implied malice, emphasizing that voluntary intoxication may only be considered as a defense regarding specific intent to kill, not as a defense to implied malice murder.

"Argument of counsel is not evidence. If they went over the law yesterday and it conflicts with what I say it is, it's what I say it is, not what they say it is," Hunter told the jury. "Bottom line, I give you the law and you must follow that law."

"The defendant had implied malice, number one if he intentionally committed an act," Hunter told them. "Number two, the natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life in that it involved a high degree of probability that death would occur. Next, at the time that he acted, he knew the act was dangerous to human life and he deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life." 

She then sent them back to the jury room to resume deliberating.

But that didn't solve the issue. A couple of hours later, the panel sent another note to the judge. They said they remained at an impasse. But they said there had been some movement in their positions.

"Do you think, madam foreperson, that any further deliberation, further readback or further deliberation or maybe trying to clarify the law anymore would assist this jury in reaching a verdict?" Hunter asked. 

"Possibly," the forewoman responded. 

So, Hunter sent the jury back to continue deliberations.