The jurors will resume deliberations Thursday morning.
For the first time since the jurors were sequestered, they stopped their deliberations this afternoon to ask a question.
The jury wanted to know if a “personality disorder is a disease of the mind, under the law.”
Both the Crown and the defence agreed it was.
Judge Guy Cournoyer called the jury back to the courtroom for a few seconds.
“The answer to your question is yes. That is all,” Cournoyer said.
At the end of the trial, the definition of mental disorder was brought up several times during the judge’s instructions.
The question was an indication that the jurors were discussing whether the “not criminally responsible” verdict is applicable in this case.
Before being sequestered, the judge instructed the jury to decide, first, whether or not Magnotta was suffering from mental illness at the time the acts were committed.
The second question they need to consider when evaluating a “not criminally responsible” verdict is whether the accused was able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime.
In its closing arguments, the defence asked the jury to find Magnotta not criminally responsible on all five charges against Magnotta, which include:- First-degree murder.
- Committing an indignity to a body.
- Publishing obscene material.
- Mailing obscene material.
- Criminal harassment.
The defence told the jury that Magnotta suffered from schizophrenia and that his psychosis at the time of the killing prevented him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong.
The Crown had a witness, psychiatrist Joel Paris, testify that he had not seen any evidence of psychosis during his hour-long assessment of Magnotta in the weeks before the killing of Jun Lin.
Paris claimed that Magnotta was faking his psychosis, and that his symptoms were more in line with a personality disorder.