A Broward jury will return to court Wednesday after a confusing day in the case of Dayonte Resiles, who was found guilty of manslaughter in the 2014 death of Jill Halliburton Su only to have the verdict rescinded because a juror recanted her vote.
The chaotic scene was the culmination of a three-week trial and four full days of deliberation. Through questions they sent to Broward Circuit Judge John J. Murphy on Monday and Tuesday, jurors repeatedly signaled their intent to convict Resiles, 27, of something. But they could not agree on whether the appropriate crime was manslaughter or first-degree murder.
The stakes could not be higher. Manslaughter in some cases could carry a maximum sentence of 30 years. First-degree murder in this case could carry the death penalty.
Resiles is the one-time fugitive whose bold escape from the Broward courthouse triggered a six-day manhunt in 2014.
In a typical trial, a verdict is followed by a poll of jurors, who one by one declare that they agree with the decision that was reached. On Tuesday, when the first juror was faced with the question, she answered with a firm “No.”
Murphy ordered the jury to continue deliberating, leaving the victim’s husband, Nan Yao Su, and the family and friends of the accused in shock. Within minutes, the jury declared itself deadlocked, and Murphy read a special instruction ordering them to try to reach an agreement.
If that effort fails, Murphy will have no choice but to declare a mistrial, which resets the entire case. Resiles could be retried for first-degree murder and, again, if he’s convicted he would face the possibility of a death sentence.
Su’s family has not made public statements about how they want to see the killer punished.
According to prosecutors, Resiles was committing a burglary in Davie on Sept. 8, 2014, when he was interrupted by Su, who had recently returned with her husband from a trip to Malaysia. Resiles struggled with Su, bound her hands and feet, forced her into a bathtub and stabbed her about 25 times, according to trial testimony.
DNA evidence placed the defendant at the scene, but defense lawyers sought to raise doubt about whether that was the result of some kind of evidence contamination.
Rafael Olmeda may be reached at rolmeda@sunsentinel.com or 954-356-4457. Follow him on Twitter @rolmeda.
