Jurors tasked with determining whether two FirstEnergy Corp. executives paid a $4.3 million bribe to capture a top state regulator have reached an “impasse,” a judge said Monday.
While the declaration hasn’t yielded a mistrial, the comments to Summit County Common Pleas Judge Susan Baker Ross indicate that after eight full days of closed-door deliberations and a six-week trial, the 12 jurors can’t reach consensus.
They’re considering a total of 11 counts split between two defendants, and haven’t reached agreement on a single one. Failure to do so would result in a hung jury.
“The court has been advised that you have reached an impasse and are requesting further instructions,” she said. “Is there something in particular you are requesting that we can give you further instructions on?”
One juror, whose identity is protected by court order, explained the situation to Ross succinctly.
“We can’t agree,” the juror said.
In response to the stalemate, Ross first read what’s known as a “Howard charge,” which acts as a last-ditch effort to nudge jurors toward a unanimous verdict. Their failure to reach a verdict would result in a mistrial, at which point the state can opt to retry or drop the case.
Catch up on the FirstEnergy bribery scandal: See all our coverage on the trial and what led to this moment here.
Ross told the jury to keep an open mind and consider others’ opinions. Members of the majority and minority, whatever the breakdown, should be willing to reconsider, Ross said. It’s “desirable” that the case be decided.
“In a large proportion of cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected,” she said. “Although the verdict must reflect the verdict of each individual juror and not mere acquiescence in a conclusion of other jurors, each question submitted to you should be examined with proper regard and deference to the opinions of others.”
Ross then took what she described as an unusual step of providing jurors with “interrogatories,” which are essentially written questions designed to help break down alleged crimes into individual elements.
The interrogatories go phrase by phrase through the jury instructions, each juncture allowing jurors a “YES” to proceed to the next element or a “NO” that essentially functions as an off-ramp.
“Considering the complexity of these charges, I felt it was worth at least giving you this opportunity to look at the charges in a more broken down way,” Ross said before reading one example aloud.
The defense objected to the reading of the Howard charge, while the prosecution objected to the reading of the interrogatories.
In their eight days of deliberations, the jurors have asked nine written questions of Ross. Each has yielded minimalist answers that were negotiated between prosecutors, a squadron of defense lawyers and Ross. None seemed to help the jury agree.
The jury’s discord can be explained at least in part by the nature of the case – its central characters and witnesses are composed of sophisticated actors like lawyers, lobbyists and technocrats. All alleged crimes occurred within the complex regulatory and engineering demands of sourcing and delivering power to FirstEnergy’s 2 million customers in Ohio. And a central actor in the alleged conspiracy died before trial.
The state’s core allegation is that the two defendants paid a $4.3 million bribe to Sam Randazzo in January 2019, shortly before Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Randazzo to serve as PUCO chairman. While in charge of the regulatory agency, Randazzo led a series of rulings to FirstEnergy’s benefit while covertly lobbying in support of legislation that passed in 2019 and provided a ratepayer-funded windfall for the company.
Lawyers for the two defendants argued the money wasn’t a bribe – rather, Randazzo stole the money, which FirstEnergy intended for his legal clients, the Industrial Energy Users of Ohio. Through this lens, they say the money couldn’t have been a bribe given the defendants didn’t know Randazzo stole it.
Randazzo died by suicide in April 2024 while under state and federal indictment.
Other claims include fraud charges related to the company’s foundational relationship with Randazzo and the Industrial Energy Users of Ohio, which dates back to 2010, and allegations that the executive tampered with state records in failing to register Randazzo as a company lobbyist.