News from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, where it appears that the “soft jihad” may have won a partial victory: Holy Land Foundation defendants face mixed verdicts.

The jury in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial was unable to reach unanimous decisions on three of the six defendants, U.S. District Judge Joe Fish said Monday as he unsealed their verdicts.

On two others, they were able to reach unanimous decisions on some of the counts. And on only one defendant were they able to reach unanimous decisions on all counts.

The judge is now beginning to announce the jury’s verdict on each defendant. In all, the jury must make 197 decisions on guilt or innocence this morning.

UPDATE at 10/22/07 8:37:00 am:

A reader in Dallas has more details:

2 defendants NOT GUILTY on all counts
One defendant GUILTY on 30 of 32 counts
2 defendants the jury could not come to agreement so no verdict

UPDATE at 10/22/07 8:44:47 am:

More information from the Holy Land trial blog at WFAA.com: Charity chairman found not guilty.

10:31 a.m. — The jury in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial was unable to reach unanimous decisions on most of the defendants including the Holy Land Foundation itself, U.S. District Judge Joe Fish said Monday. He ordered them back to the jury room to discuss whether further deliberations might allow them to reach a decision. If not, he is likely to declare a hung jury on many counts in the complex case.

In all, the jury was asked to make 197 decisions on guilt or innocence. One official — Mufid Abdulqader, a top Holy Land fundraiser and former Dallas public works supervisor — was found not guilty on all counts. Two other officials — Mohammad El-Mezain, the Holy Land’s original chairman and endowments director, and Abdulrahman Odeh, the foundation’s New Jersey representative, were acquitted on most of the charges. The jury was hung on the others.

But when polled, three jurors told the judge that they did not agree with the verdicts, prompting the judge to send them back to the jury room. “Your verdict must be unanimous and it’s apparent to me from the answers of three members of the jury in respect to my question that the verdicts that I read earlier do not rep the unanimous view of the jury,” Judge Fish said.

UPDATE at 10/22/07 9:01:18 am:

Lawhawk looks at the verdicts—or to be more correct, the lack of verdicts: Hung Jury in Holy Land Foundation Terror Financing Trial.

The possibility of Judge Fish calling a mistrial is quite high, and that would favor the prosecution. Such a decision would grant the prosecution the ability to retry the case. In all likelyhood, they would streamline the case and reduce the counts involved. While that might mean lesser sentences, it might also result in the jury coming to a unanimous decision - guilty verdicts.

Another possibility is that depending on how the jury polled on individual counts, the prosecutors might attempt to offer plea deals to the defendants (say that the jury polled 10-2 or 11-1 guilty on a count). Similarly, the defense might opt to take their chances if they were found not guilty by a similar margin.