A Baltimore judge declared a mistrial in the Stricker Street fire trial after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict after five days of deliberations.
James Barnett, 58, was on trial for the 2022 fire that killed three Baltimore City firefighters and seriously injured a fourth.
On Tuesday, the jury sent the judge a note telling the judge they were split and unable to reach a unanimous decision.
“We have reviewed the evidence again and we remain split. We are unable to reach a unanimous decision based on the evidence presented,” the note read.
Tuesday’s note of a hung jury was the second time during the trial that the jury told the judge it was unable to reach an agreement on the charges against Barnett. After the jury told the judge on Friday it was deadlock, the judge gave an Allen charge, instructing them to keep working to reach a verdict.
The jury got the case last Wednesday after hearing six days of trial testimony followed by closing arguments.
The jury took up nine criminal counts:
On Thursday afternoon, the jury sent a question to the judge requesting to have the redacted transcripts of the Feb. 25, 2022, and March 7, 2022, interviews with Barnett. The request was declined.
The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on any of the nine charges.
In a statement Tuesday afternoon after a judge declared a mistrial, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City Ivan Bates said his office will “carefully evaluate the next steps and continue to do everything in our power to hold the defendant accountable for the devastating consequences of his alleged actions.”
“Today’s outcome is deeply disappointing for the families of Lt. Paul Butrim, Lt. Kelsey Sadler, and EMT/Firefighter Kenny Lacayo, whose lives were tragically cut short in the Stricker Street fire in 2022,” Bates said in a statement. “While this is not the outcome we sought, our commitment to these families and to pursuing justice has not changed.”
The decision comes after the judge granted a defense motion to toss three counts of second-degree murder.
Video above: Judge drops murder counts in Stricker Street fire trial (Tuesday)
The state and defense rested their cases late Tuesday afternoon, and the defense renewed a motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts.
An hour later, the judge granted it, in part, saying the state failed to provide evidence to meet the burden required for conviction on second-degree depraved heart murder in the deaths of Baltimore City Fire Lt. Paul Butrim, Lt. Kelsey Sadler and Firefighter Kenny Lacayo.
The judge said that the state did provide sufficient evidence for the jury to potentially reach a finding of guilt on the remaining second-degree arson, involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment counts.
During closing arguments, prosecutors told the jury that they have evidence that leaves no doubt that Barnett was responsible.
“We are here because the defendant applied a flame four times to the already dilapidated vacant rowhome, set it on fire and walked away,” the prosecutor said.
Prosecutors said Barnett was at the scene wearing a blue-and-yellow coat and that he admitted to being there that night.
“There is no doubt what he did caused the deadly fire.”
The state pointed to surveillance video, as well as testing and analysis of evidence by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
“(Barnett is seen on video) entering the rear of 205 S. Stricker at 11:23 p.m. and, during his eight-minute stay, four flashes of flame are applied by the defendant,” the prosecutor said.
The state asked for a guilty verdict on all counts, saying: “There is no doubt what he did caused the deadly fire.”
Barnett’s defense countered, saying it’s not possible that he is responsible because the state failed to prove Barnett “willfully and maliciously” set fire to the structure and was “aware of the risk” and “disregarded” it.
The defense asserted that Barnett’s coat was blue and brown, and that he repeatedly said it wasn’t him in surveillance video and the coat seen on video isn’t his coat.
The defense also called the ATF’s testing of evidence flawed, saying: “Those four flashes? Nothing occurs after. There is no risk to be aware of.”
When the person on the video was seen leaving the scene, the defense said, “There’s no fire occurring, there is nothing to disregard.”
“The person of interest and James Barnett are not the same person.”
“The person of interest and James Barnett are not the same person,” the defense said.
Barnett’s attorney argued that the jury heard the recorded interview in which the defense said Barnett repeatedly told investigators that it’s not him in the video and the coat wasn’t his.
“As for the business with the coat, the coat from James Barnett is blue and brown. The coat in the video is blue and yellow,” the defense said. “There is clearly all this discrepancy about how it appears.”
The defense said the state did nothing to clear up the discrepancy because, if they did, they wouldn’t have a case.
“So, you are left to fend for yourselves,” the defense told the jury.
