The jury in the federal trial of former Stoughton police detective Matthew Farwell told Chief U.S. District Judge Denise Casper on Monday, November 9, 2026, that it is deadlocked. In a note, the jurors said they were “in a deadlock that looks like it will not change any time soon,” WCVB reported. NBC10 Boston also reported the deadlock note, saying it was one of two notes from the jury read out in court Monday afternoon. The other was about scheduling.
Judge Casper sent the jury home for the day and told jurors to return Tuesday for further proceedings, according to WCVB. No verdict has been reached and no mistrial has been declared. Farwell, 40, is charged with killing Sandra Birchmore, 23, who was pregnant, and her unborn child in Canton on February 1, 2021. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
What happened in court Monday
- The note. After the jury’s first full day of deliberations, the note said the deadlock “looks like it will not change any time soon,” according to WCVB. NBC10 reported the note said the jury does not believe it will change any time soon.
- The lawyers’ positions. The defense objected to the jury deliberating further without instructions from the court, while the prosecution suggested the jury be given the option to continue deliberating Monday, WCVB reported.
- The ruling for now. Casper dismissed the jury for the day and said it would return Tuesday, according to WCVB.
The jury of eight men and four women had the case for a little more than three hours Friday, as we reported, and for most of Monday.
What a deadlock note does, and does not, mean
A note saying the jury is stuck is not a mistrial. Only the judge can declare one. And the judge has told the jurors not to reveal how they stand. “Remember you are not to tell anyone, and that includes me, how the jury stands numerically or otherwise” until a verdict is returned, Casper instructed them on Friday, CBS News Boston reported. Neither WCVB nor NBC10 reported any vote count in the note, and we do not know the split or which way it leans.
What can happen Tuesday
The federal rules and case law, which we covered in detail in our explainer on hung juries and mistrials, leave Casper several options.
| Option | What it means |
|---|---|
| Send them back to keep working | The judge can tell jurors to continue deliberating, with or without further instructions. |
| An Allen charge | A supplemental instruction that urges jurors to reconsider their views without giving up honest convictions. It takes its name from Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). |
| A partial verdict | Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(b), a jury that agrees on one count but not another can return a verdict on the count it agrees on. Farwell faces two counts. |
| A mistrial | If the jury still cannot agree, the judge can declare a mistrial. Rule 26.3 requires her first to give each side a chance to comment, consent or object, and suggest alternatives. |
The Allen charge. In Allen, which we verified and read on CourtListener, the Supreme Court approved telling jurors that “the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows,” but that they “should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other’s arguments.” Casper’s Friday instructions already pointed in that direction: reach a verdict if possible, but not by surrendering an honest conviction, CBS reported.
The defense objection. WCVB reported the defense objected to the jury deliberating further without instructions from the court. The report did not say what instruction, if any, either side wants the judge to give.
If there is a mistrial
- Retrial is allowed. In Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984), also verified, the Supreme Court held “that the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy.” The government could try Farwell again.
- The government decides. The U.S. Attorney’s Office would choose whether to retry the case or drop it.
- An acquittal motion. Rule 29(c)(2) says that “if the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.” Casper denied Farwell’s earlier motion for acquittal before closings, as we reported.
WCVB reported Monday that the U.S. Attorney’s Office plans to hold a news conference 30 minutes after a verdict, with members of Birchmore’s family expected to attend.
A recent Massachusetts comparison
In the 2024 Karen Read trial in Norfolk Superior Court, jurors told the judge three times that they could not agree. The judge gave the state’s version of the deadlock instruction and then declared a mistrial, CNN reported at the time. That was a state case under state rules. Farwell’s case is in federal court, where the Allen charge and Rules 26.3 and 31 apply.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Farwell jury deadlocked?
The jury sent a note Monday, November 9, 2026, saying it was “in a deadlock that looks like it will not change any time soon,” WCVB reported. The judge sent jurors home and told them to return Tuesday.
Was a mistrial declared in the Farwell trial?
No. As of Monday evening, no mistrial had been declared and no verdict had been reached.
What is an Allen charge?
A supplemental instruction to a deadlocked jury, approved in Allen v. United States (1896), that urges jurors to listen to one another and reconsider, while reminding them that each verdict must reflect each juror’s own judgment.
Can Farwell be retried if the jury hangs?
Yes. Under Richardson v. United States, a hung jury does not end jeopardy, so the government could bring the case again.
Can the jury decide one count and not the other?
Yes. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(b) allows a partial verdict on any count the jury agrees on.
Sources: WCVB and NBC10 Boston, November 9, 2026; CBS News Boston, November 6, 2026; CNN, July 1, 2024. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.3, 29 and 31, read at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), and Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984), verified on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.