Crime Scene

WILMINGTON, DE – Of course, 30 minutes after I blogged that the jury in the James Cooke capital murder trial hadn’t sent any notes, they sent one.

Esteban Parra, who is covering the trial for The News Journal here in Wilmington, immediately joked that I should blog about not getting a verdict yet.

The note did not shed much light on where the deliberations stand and did not involve the top count, first-degree murder, that Cooke is facing in the detah of Lindsey Bonistall. It asked the judge whether Cooke had to have the intention of raping Bonistall when he entered her apartment to be convicted of first-degree burglary or whether he could have intended to commit any crime. 

After a lot of back and forth with the lawyers, Judge Jerome Herlihy called the jury in and explained to them that the intent to commit a rape was required for the burglary conviction. But he went on to emphasize that the terms ”entering unlawfully” and  ”remaining unlawfully” were distinct – suggesting that Cooke could have formed the intent once inside the apartment.

It was curious that the jury was so focused on the specific charges themselves, particularly after Cooke’s lawyers conceded in closing arguments Monday that he had committed the crimes.

There was no clue regarding how the jury feels about the key issue – whether Cooke was mentally ill at the time.