(Manslaughter, as it turns out, and sure enough, the news has people saying that this lesser verdict shows how backwards we are.)

I see the prosecution's closing asked the jury to "send a message," which is error, tho not necessarily reversible on its own:

The jurors are representatives of the community in one sense, but they are not to vote in a representative capacity. Each juror is to apply the law to the evidence and vote accordingly. The issue which each juror must resolve is not whether or not he or she wishes to “send a message” but whether or not he or she believes that the evidence showed the defendant to be guilty of the crime charged. The jury is an arm of the State but it is not an arm of the prosecution. The State includes both the prosecution and the accused. The function of the jury is to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. When the prosecution wishes to send a message they should employ Western Union. Mississippi jurors are not messenger boys.

Williams v. Mississippi, 522 So. 2d 201.

1) The jury has now come back with a manslaughter conviction.

2) No double jeopardy issue because there had never been a state murder trial. There had been a federal conspiracy trial, but the elements are different and dual sovereignty, so that's why there's no double jeopardy issue.

3) I just heard an NPR report that indicated the jury never really declared themselves deadlocked. The judge brought them into court at the end of the day yesterday and asked how they were doing (which is common), at which point the jury (probably the foreman) announced that they were 6-6, which shouldn't have been said, but it's not the same at all as announcing a deadlock. The reporter also said at this point it cannot be known how the 6-6 vote was split, but she thinks it was 6 for murder, 6 for manslaughter. (I think it could have been 6 for murder, 6 for acquittal, and they agreed on manslaughter as a compromise.)

(I have only the haziest grasp of criminal law and of why Killen can even be put on trial again.)

I'm not up on the facts of this case and am not a lawyer, but as a general rule a defendant can be brought to trial again for the same offense in the event of new evidence without a double jeopardy issue.

James Joyner comments thusly on the jury deadlock in the Killen trial: One of the many problems with digging up decades-old cases for re-prosecution in order to salve old wounds is that only one outcome is ?acceptable.? Our criminal justice system is s...

Taking Back the Memorial Michelle Malkin, WizBang, The Wide Awakes Durbin's foot still in his mouth Michelle Malkin, Ace of...

It's a shame that Killen wasn't convicted in the 1st place, on the facts as we have them, but it's a sad situation. The jury must feel pressured to convict lest the rest of the country go "see, still protecting those KKK'ers!" And knowing my fellow good old boys, I suspect that feeling that pressure will be enough for one or two to acquit.

What made this jury announce their numerical tally? And why did the judge let them get that out?

That's almost as ridiculous as the jury thinking they're deadlocked after deliberating only 2 hours.

I know judges around here who would actually yell at a jury for such behavior. I'm not sure that's a great idea, but I can understand the temptation.

Just look at the Rodney King case-when the jurors forgot to play their role and convict the officers.