The Matthew Farwell jury says it is stuck. The judge does not sound ready to let it go.
After jurors sent a note Monday, November 9, 2026, saying they were “in a deadlock that looks like will not change anytime soon,” Chief U.S. District Judge Denise Casper told the lawyers she was inclined to bring the jury back Tuesday without giving further instructions, Boston.com reported. Referring to how long jurors had deliberated and how much evidence they had to weigh, she said, “I don’t think it’s been so long in my estimation,” according to Boston.com.
That remark, and what each side asked for, is the best guide to what happens when jurors return at 9 a.m. Tuesday. Here is what Casper said, what the lawyers want, what legal analysts expect, and what the law lets her do. Farwell, 40, a former Stoughton police detective, is charged with killing Sandra Birchmore, 23, who was pregnant, and her unborn child in Canton in February 2021. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
What the judge said in court
- The notes. Jurors sent two messages. The first, which Casper paraphrased, asked about scheduling for the rest of the afternoon. The second was sent before jurors got an answer to the first, Casper said, according to Boston.com. CBS News Boston reported that the judge planned to tell jurors they could not stay past 6 p.m.
- The wording. Outlets transcribed the note slightly differently. Boston.com quoted it as “We are in a deadlock that looks like will not change anytime soon.” WCVB reported “in a deadlock that looks like it will not change any time soon.”
- Her inclination. Casper said she was inclined to bring the jury back Tuesday without providing further instructions, Boston.com reported. NBC10 Boston also reported she said she was inclined to have the jury return Tuesday.
- Her view of the timing. “I don’t think it’s been so long in my estimation,” Casper said, according to Boston.com. Boston.com put deliberations at more than 10 hours.
What each side wants
- Prosecutors asked that the jury return to deliberations, NBC10 reported.
- The defense said that sounded good to them but asked for an 8:30 a.m. meeting on further instructions for the jury, according to NBC10. Boston.com reported that Farwell’s lawyers indicated they will ask Casper to issue specific instructions in the morning.
- Both sides agreed jurors should return Tuesday, WCVB reported.
No outlet has reported what instruction the defense will request.
What analysts expect
Former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley told WCVB the deadlock was not unexpected but came “a little bit early.” She said the judge will most likely give an Allen charge, sometimes called a “dynamite charge,” which urges jurors on each side to be willing to listen to the other. Coakley also said it is better for the prosecution that there was not a “too quick” verdict, because that could raise questions on appeal, WCVB reported.
Casper’s own remarks point the same direction as Coakley’s timing comment: neither treats a deadlock after this much deliberation as the end. Coakley’s prediction about an Allen charge is a little different from Casper’s stated inclination to send jurors back without new instructions, at least to start. The 8:30 a.m. meeting may settle that.
The options, ranked by what has been said
| Option | What points to it |
|---|---|
| Send jurors back with no new instruction | Casper said that was her inclination Monday, according to Boston.com. |
| A supplemental instruction, possibly an Allen charge | The defense plans to ask for specific instructions, Boston.com and NBC10 reported. Coakley predicted an Allen charge, WCVB reported. |
| A partial verdict | Available under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 31(b) if jurors agree on one of the two counts. Nothing reported points to it yet. |
| A mistrial | Casper’s comment that deliberations have not been “so long” cuts against an early mistrial. Rule 26.3 requires her to hear from both sides first. |
That ranking reflects what Casper and the lawyers said Monday. It is not a prediction of the verdict, and we do not know how the jury is split. Casper told jurors Friday not to tell anyone, including her, “how the jury stands numerically or otherwise,” CBS News Boston reported.
Why judges wait
The law gives Casper wide room and pulls her in two directions. We verified and read these cases on CourtListener.
- The 1824 rule. In United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824), a hung jury case, the Supreme Court said courts may discharge a jury when “there is a manifest necessity for the act,” but that the power “ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes.”
- The classic basis. In Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978), the Court called a jury’s inability to reach a verdict “long considered the classic basis for a proper mistrial,” and said “the trial judge may discharge a genuinely deadlocked jury and require the defendant to submit to a second trial.”
- The risk on each side. The same opinion explained the bind. Discharge a jury too soon and the defendant loses his “valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.” Hold a jury too long, “after protracted and exhausting deliberations,” and “there exists a significant risk that a verdict may result from pressures inherent in the situation rather than the considered judgment of all the jurors.”
- Deference. Because of that, the Court said, a trial judge’s decision to declare a mistrial when the jury is deadlocked “is therefore accorded great deference by a reviewing court.”
In other words, the call is Casper’s, and appeals courts rarely second-guess it. Her comment that it has not been “so long” reflects the first half of that balance.
If she gives an Allen charge
In federal court in Massachusetts, the First Circuit requires any instruction that urges a deadlocked jury to keep going to tell both the majority and the minority to reexamine their positions, acknowledge that the jury has the right not to agree, and remind jurors that the government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Our Allen charge explainer covers those elements and the line between encouragement and coercion.
If the jury still cannot agree
A hung jury is not an acquittal. In Arizona v. Washington, the Court said the argument that a jury’s inability to agree requires acquittal “has been uniformly rejected in this country.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office would decide whether to try Farwell again. WCVB reported that office plans a news conference 30 minutes after any verdict.
Frequently asked questions
What did Judge Casper say about the Farwell deadlock?
She said she was inclined to bring the jury back Tuesday without further instructions and, referring to the length of deliberations, said, “I don’t think it’s been so long in my estimation,” Boston.com reported.
Will there be a mistrial in the Farwell case?
None has been declared. Casper’s comments Monday suggest she does not view the deadlock as final yet. A mistrial would require her to hear from both sides under Rule 26.3.
How long has the Farwell jury deliberated?
More than 10 hours as of Monday, according to Boston.com. WCVB reported jurors deliberated nearly four hours Friday.
What is the 8:30 a.m. meeting?
The defense asked for a meeting before jurors return at 9 a.m. Tuesday to discuss further instructions for the jury, NBC10 reported.
Can Farwell be tried again if the jury hangs?
Yes. A hung jury does not end the case, and the government could retry it.
Sources: Boston.com, NBC10 Boston, WCVB and CBS News Boston, November 9, 2026; CBS News Boston, November 6, 2026. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824), and Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978), verified and read on CourtListener. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 26.3 and 31, read at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. General information, not legal advice.