The jury, in its first vote, found Goetz guilty on charge 1.  The defense's argument that Goetz had made prior efforts to obtain a license to carry a firearm received no attention from the jury.

Myra Friedman, a neighbor of Goetz, testified that Goetz gave her two guns in a hatbox for safekeeping on December 30, the day before he turned himself in.  The jury considered that Friedman might have been lying, as she was a writer who reported on the Goetz case for New York magazine.  She could possibly have a motive (a more compelling story) for making up a story about Bernie giving her two guns.  Others considered Friedman "an accomplice" in this crime, and that therefore under New York law her testimony had to be corroborated by other evidence, and that the other corrobating evidence (testimony of men who sold the guns to Goetz and of the police detective who received the guns from Friedman's lawyer) was too weak.  The jury requested from the court any statements in Goetz's taped confessions that related to his turning over the guns, but was told that there were no such statements in the tapes. The jury also considered whether Goetz was really in "constructive possession" of the guns once he handed them over to Friedman.  For some jurors, the fact that Goetz did not have a key to her apartment was enough to convince them that he did not have constructive possession.  Other jurors thought that possession was established by the fact that Goetz had the guns before he turned them over to Friedman, and what happened to the guns afterwards was irrelevant.  The initial vote on this charge was 8 "guilty" and 4 "not guilty," but after nearly a full day of deliberation, the jury came around to a unanimous verdict of "not guilty."

See discussion for "Charge 2" above.

The initial vote on this charge was 4 "not guilty" and 8 abstentions.  The jury focused on whether the evidence proved that Goetz had the "conscious aim or objective" (language from Judge Crane's instructions) of killing Canty when he pulled the trigger in the subway car.  Goetz, in his taped confessions, stated that murder was his aim when he saw the smile on Canty's face and the shine in his eyes.  This seemed to establish the necessary intent to kill.  Moreover, Goetz fired at the youths' midsections, not at their legs as he might have if his goal was just to injure them.  Not all jurors, however, were convinced.  One argued that Goetz had "no reason" to want the youths dead, despite his own statements to the contrary.  Some jurors suggested that his statements about wanting to kill were the result of a post-event rage, and not the thoughts in his head as he pulled the trigger.  Eventually, most jurors decided that Goetz had the motivation to shoot (to end the threat), but lacked the motivation to kill.  Jurors also considered that Goetz's action, even with an intent to kill, would be justified under the law if a reasonable person in his position would believe that he was facing an "implied threat of deadly force."  The jurors looked at scale models of the subway car and requested testimony regarding justification.  They concluded that Canty and Allen, and possibly Ramseur, formed a tight semi-circle around Goetz, invaded his space, and presented  some sort of threat--although whether a reasonable person could consider it to be a threat of serious physical injury justifying the use of deadly force was questionable. Some jurors pointed out that Goetz need only create "a reasonable doubt" that he met the test for self-defense, and that he had no burden to prove that he met the standard.  By the end of the day of June 13, through the process of connecting self-defense to "intent to cause death" (and throwing in a little "reasonable doubt"), the jury unanimously voted to find Goetz "not guilty" of this and the other three attempted murder charges.

See discussion for "Charge 4" above.

See discussion for "Charge 4" above.

See discussion for "Charge 4" above.

Several jurors agreed that Goetz's actions were unwarranted and reckless.  Juror Cathy Brody argued that the youths were most likely only planning to intimidate Goetz into giving them money and had no intention of actually robbing him.  She thought Goetz used excessive force for the level of threat the youths presented.  Two other female jurors generally agreed with Brody and, after a lengthy discussion with no opinions changing, a deadlock on the assault charges seemed a real possibility.  A deadlock was averted, however, when juror James Mosely (a graphic artist by occupation), cut out five figures and began moving them around a plastic overlay covering a diagram of the subway car.  Figures labeled "Unreasonable Number One," "Unreasonable Number Two," and "Unreasonable Number Three" begin closing in on round-headed and comical-looking "William Reasonable."  The three hold-out jurors, appreciating the humorous slideshow-like presentation, came to see more clearly that anyone--not just the quirky and unreasonable Bernhard Goetz--would have been afraid on that subway car.  At least with respect to the shooting of Canty, Allen, and Ramseur, all jurors could agree on a verdict of "not guilty" on the assault charge.

See discussion for "Charge 8" above.

See discussion for "Charge 8" above.

Charge 11, concerning the fourth and fifth shots fired by Goetz, including the bullet that paralyzed Darrell Cabey, presented the greatest challenge for the jury.  According to juror Mark Lesly, at least one-fifth of the jury's total time spent on deliberations concerned charge 11. The jury had to decide whether Goetz had time to conclude that whatever threat the youths presented had effectively ended by the time he went over to Cabey and, according to his own confession, said, "You seem to be doing all right; here's another," before firing his final shot.  Goetz's account contradicted several other witnesses who described the shots as coming in rapid succession.  The "rapid succession" theory allowed jurors to accept the defense argument that Goetz effectively went on "automatic pilot" after he fired the first shot; the five shots were all really one event.  Jurors speculated that Goetz might not in fact have said "here's another," but just had that thought in his mind, and possibly only after the shooting.  One witness, however, presented problems for the defense: Christopher Boucher.  Boucher testified that Goetz did pause between his fourth and fifth shot, and went over to Cabey and fired the last shot point blank into Cabey's side as he sat in a subway seat.  The fact that the evidence concerning the location of Cabey's entry wound was inconsistent with Boucher's testimony allowed some jurors to speculate that Boucher made his whole story up, though for what possible reason the jurors had a hard time determining.  In the end, the concept of reasonable doubt again turned the jury toward a not guilty vote.  The defense, the jury believed, raised at least the possibility that Goetz went on "automatic pilot" in response to the threat presented in the subway car.

The jury concluded that Goetz did not enter the subway with the "conscious aim or objective" of using his firearm to injure another.  In other words, they did not think Goetz was "looking for trouble" on December 22, 1984.  Believing that Goetz therefore lacked the necessary unlawful intent to use his firearm, the jury, in its initial vote on this charge, unanimously voted "not guilty."

The jury concluded that Goetz's discharge of his weapon on the subway was not sufficiently "reckless" because he had a not unjustified fear that his shooting victims were about to cause him serious physical harm.  The jury therefore, on its initial vote on this charge, unanimously voted "not guilty."