Paul Simpson wants Cole County residents to know: they got a good deal from the seven men and five women who convicted Calvin Hutson last week of second-degree murder, for the Dec. 27, 2012, killing of Andre Hudson, 41, Holts Summit.
The jurors also found Hutson, 36, St. Louis, guilty of attempted first-degree robbery, armed criminal action and unlawful possession of a weapon.
Circuit Judge Dan Green gave Public Defender Kevin Lorenz most of the next month to do the research needed to argue why Green should grant a new trial, and move for one.
The judge said unless he grants the new trial request, he expects to sentence Hutson later this summer - perhaps before the end of July.
The sentencing is up to Green, subject to the parameters set by state law, and the jurors had no say or recommendation to make on sentencing in this kind of case.
The murder and robbery charges are Class A felonies, with a possible prison sentence of from 10-30 years, or life (which state law calculates as 30 years).
Because Hutson didn't testify, the jury couldn't be told details of his previous criminal history - but Prosecutor Mark Richardson told reporters Friday that Hutson "had four prior felony convictions, and had just been out of jail 17 days before he committed the murder."
Jurors knew there had been a previous felony, though, because the unlawful weapons possession charge was based on that fact. It's a Class C felony, with a punishment of up to seven years in prison.
And state law requires a prison sentence of 3-10 years for the armed criminal action conviction.
Simpson said the group's choice of a foreman was the easy part of their day, after they entered the jury room at 10:15 a.m. Thursday.
With that decision made, they spent the next couple of hours going through the instructions before they even took a first vote.
"We reviewed all the instruction papers the judge had given us," Simpson told the News Tribune on Saturday afternoon, "and what constitutes reasonable doubt and all that stuff.
"We went over all of that and read through it and discussed it before we ever went to the charges."
Simpson, 60, Jefferson City, added: "It was a very long deliberation - and, as we voted and reviewed, and reviewed and voted, and reviewed and reviewed, there were people who expressed fear to find him guilty - that there might be retaliation" from Hutson's friends.
Simpson used no names during the telephone interview, and spoke cautiously about the concerns some of his fellow jurors raised during the panel's 10 1/2-hour-deliberation Thursday.
"This was a serious decision - this guy's life was impacted big time by what we decided," Simpson said. "It was all discussion and reasoning, and working over the evidence 500 different ways."
During Thursday's closing arguments, Richardson and Lorenz both argued the jurors had to concentrate on the attempted robbery charge first.
The written jury instructions said the same thing.
And that's what the jury did, Simpson said Saturday.
"In order to find him guilty of either armed criminal action or second-degree murder, he had to be found guilty of attempted robbery," Simpson explained.
But one juror said, "I don't know - I just need to think about it," as they took their internal poll on that charge after talking about it for awhile, Simpson said.
Even as the jurors were getting tired and wanting to make a decision and go home, Simpson said, "There was no anger. There was no pressure. It was (just) discussion.
"It was all, "Can we help you reach a decision? Why do you feel like you do?'
"We wanted to be sure, when we were done, everybody was comfortable with the answer because we've got to live with it."
Simpson said he was impressed with the way the entire case was handled, from its presentation to the way all the jurors considered the evidence and the facts.
"It was an incredibly fair process, I thought," he explained. "I couldn't think of anything that could be changed, that would make it a fairer process."
And he emphasized, again, his reason for calling the newspaper Saturday - to praise his fellow jurors who struggled with their vote because of a feared future threat.
"I am impressed with those people who stood up - maybe against their own best interests- and voted the way they did," he said, because they ultimately agreed that was the decision the facts took them to.