Court TV Host: We're going to have a rare opportunity to talk about the outcome of the Rae Carruth trial with one of the people who determined what that outcome was. We're going to be talking to juror Edward Karst. As you know, Rae Carruth today was sentenced to 18 to 24 years for the three charges he was convicted on.

Court TV Host: Some interesting facts about the jury which I picked up from the Charlotte Observer. They voted in secret on scraps of paper from a memo pad. The foreman of the jury said it wasn't a compromise. They also made an agreement that they would NOT talk publicly about much of what they said in the jury room. Though the foreman of the jury says it was not a compromise, our guest, juror Edward Karst, has been quoted as saying that it WAS a compromise.

Court TV Host: By the way, while we're doing this chat, Court TV will be airing a special on the Carruth trial. Mr. Karst will be on that special, right after this chat, so you can look for him on air at about 5:45 Eastern. And he's right here with us now online. Welcome, Mr. Karst.

Edward Karst: Thank you.

topnotchproductions2001 asks: What made you decide not to convict on the 1st degree murder charge?

thick_chick32 asks: How could the jury find him guilty of three charges and not guilty of first degree murder?

Edward Karst: Basically, we agreed that we would convict on the three counts and on the fourth, which was first-degree murder, we could not agree. For that reason we chose to acquit on that count. It's not logical, and all elements are there but we would not get conviction the first-degree murder charge.

Court TV Host: Let me ask a follow-up. When you say it's "not logical," is that something you discussed amongst yourselves at the time?

Edward Karst: No, I don't recall doing that.

Court TV Host: Did it appear that way to you at the time?

Edward Karst: At the time, yes. My guess is that even though we had thorough examination, some of the jurors were unwilling to give the death sentence when it came down to it, even though we had heavy questioning on that idea from both the prosecution and the defense.

yorkdaledrive asks: Was it a compromise, or what???

Edward Karst: David Rudolf called it a compromise, and I suppose it has to be viewed that way.

KRT_bird asks: What did you think of Watkins?

Edward Karst: Watkins was a scary guy. I was sitting right at the door when he came in. Later on I moved. We swapped seats when one of the other jurors had knee problems, but I was there when he walked in and out. And there was a bailiff between him and the judge at all times.

Court TV Host: Would you like to talk about whether his testimony swayed your view at all?

Edward Karst: His testimony was believable as regards the crime involved, and basically backed up Cherica's 911 tape.

BooLikeMike asks: Did Amber Turner's testimony sway you one way or another?

Edward Karst: Probably the only significant thing that she mentioned was not by itself conclusive or damning but in context with other evidence, her statement of the threats was interesting. I don't know that it was conclusive, but it added to the picture.

mouzson asks: What did you think about Sgt. Riddle's testimony?

Edward Karst: She was probably the pawn of our friend Watkins, and since it was his statement rather than hers, we didn't give it a whole lot of credibility, I would guess, I suppose I have to speak for myself rather than the rest of the group. He may have been talking on a dead line for all we know. The conversation was overheard. There was no evidence to determine whom he was speaking to.

natashafaulk asks: David Rudolf is on TV now, what did you guys think of him?

Edward Karst: I think he's a good lawyer, very professional. I don't think he got very far with his drug theory. He presented that in opening arguments but we found very little evidence later on in the testimony to support that. About the only thing where that was mentioned was where Ron Guerrette said the number of phone calls was similar to that when a drug deal goes down, but that was the only evidence regarding a possible drug deal.

Court TV Host: Speaking of Rudolf, here's a point he's been making since the verdict...

natashafaulk asks: Shouldn't he have been acquitted if there were jurors that had a reasonable doubt?

Edward Karst: Certainly he should have, but there was no reasonable doubt with regard to the other three charges. Everyone believed that Rae Carruth was involved.

BooLikeMike asks: Did all of you pretty much agree that Rae was involved, but not sure to what degree?

Edward Karst: Well, I'd have to get back to the idea of voir dire -- that that process while it was extensive did let some people in who did not want to vote for a death sentence, although that was one of the purposes, to make sure that all of us were willing to give such a sentence. There may be many reasons for the jurors who did not want to vote for that to have that opinion or that view of that charge, so I think not everyone had the same reason for doing it.

tequilashotgrl asks: Did members of the jury have doubt when announcing the verdict?

Edward Karst: I don't think so. We all voted that way, and once that happened, once we had reached the unanimous decision, we were polled by the judge to make sure that those were indeed our verdicts on all counts.

mouzson asks: Was there any racial tension during the deliberations?

Edward Karst: I don't believe so. I don't think race played any part in the verdicts at all.

Court TV Host: How about tensions in general...

mouzson asks: Was there any tension at all during the deliberations?

Edward Karst: Some people while we argued various points, the worst that happened was the slightly raised voices. But we never had any fisticuffs or name-calling or anything that could be called anything other than civil discussion.

suecar387 asks: Did the deal with Watkins influence your decision?

Edward Karst: It didn't influence mine, but there may have been some feelings about that from others. The shooter getting the second-degree plea bargain does create problems that he would receive a less severe sentence.

hotfreakyone4u asks: What did the jury need to find out from the judge after being deadlocked?

Edward Karst: I don't think we really needed anything. He just told us to go back and do our job again, but there was no additional evidence he could give us.

steph4098 asks: How can you be hung on Thursday and not on Friday? Is it because you didnt want to deal with it on the weekend?

Edward Karst: We went back with the idea that we would take as long as necessary, but we did reach agreement on the lesser charges on Friday and then agreed to drop the first degree charge. There's discussion of Friday verdicts -- that Friday is the best day for verdicts -- and it probably is, but I think we would have been willing to go longer if we had to.

Court TV Host: When you came back and said you couldn't decide, did you realize that you would just be sent back?

Edward Karst: Yes, I did. That's what I expected. I don't know what anybody else expected. But I knew we would be giving a progress report and then going back to work.

ylemcobbler asks: I would like to know what the impact of the physical evidence was on the jury, i.e., what weight was given to the mask ,gloves, cleaned bullets etc.?

Edward Karst: That physical evidence--we didn't see a mask or gloves. The only piece of evidence we saw was the gun, and the expended shells. Maybe that was one of the weak spots because the ballistics match could not be made because the gun had been exposed to weather for such a long period.

tex_san asks: Are you concerned that by admitting to "compromise" that it will affect the appeal?

Edward Karst: I don't think so. That was the argument that Mr. Rudolf made in court today, and the judge heard that. That was one part that I did hear today. The judge said no problem. The other thing--I don't know if this was fair or unfair-- the judge was somewhat surprised by the verdict but at that point if he considered that there was malfeasance by the jury he would have returned us to the jury room before reading the verdicts.

therose_4 asks: Enlighten me as to how he was convicted on the charge of shooting into an occupied vehicle - is that guilt by association, or how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Edward Karst: He is guilty for shooting into a vehicle by virtue of having planned that with Van Brett Watkins and Michael Kennedy. So by conspiring to do it and then having it actually happen, he is guilty in the conspiracy to do it. And I think probably the legal term for that is vicarious liability.

sportsplusaw asks: Why do you say the judge was surprised by the verdict?

Edward Karst: His facial expression was evidence of that, I think.

sparkster8 asks: Did the attorney on the panel help or hinder?

sportsplusaw asks: What input did the juror who was an attorney have on the verdict?

Edward Karst: He had normal input as a member of the jury. We did not allow him -- the judge gave instructions. We had to follow those. We cannot take legal opinion from him or anyone else.

sugaray112000 asks: Do you think that the jury would have rendered a different outcome, if they (you) had known that the baby has brain damage and cerebral palsy?

Edward Karst: That's hard to say. I basically tried to make my decision based on the evidence we had. And I presume that evidence was discussed in the course of our many stays in the jury room. We were excused quite often during the trial. And the current health of Chancellor may have been one of the items or pieces of evidence that we were not privy to hear.

hunterroo45601 asks: How long did it take you to personally make up your mind?

Edward Karst: It probably took me a couple of days of listening to the other jurors and passing information and arguments back and forth.

jazzdancer100 asks: Were you expecting Rae Carruth to testify?

yorkdaledrive asks: Do you think Rae should have testified?

Edward Karst: I think it would have been helpful to us to have him testify but that's his right not to testify, and I don't think any adverse conclusions were drawn by his not getting on the stand. We were surprised that the defense called Watkins and that he had not been called by the prosecution.

liambriana asks: Did you drop the first degree because you thought he would be sentenced harshly enough on the other counts?

Edward Karst: I'm not going to discuss my vote or impression on that, and I will not discuss the votes, opinions of other jurors on that point.

mustanggtplayer asks: How hard was it to listen to the hours of testimony that the defense used to show he was a good man? It seemed to me that the same things were being said over and over. Do you agree or disagree?

Edward Karst: I agree. That was hard to stay awake for - some of it. But there was a lot of tedious cross examination and some of it was ... we were in the courtroom for months. And when a new witness was on the stand it was a lot easier to pay attention. I personally tried to focus on the judge when he was speaking and on the attorneys when they were speaking, and, of course, on the witnesses, but it's a tough way to go.

jazzbluesjazzblues asks: If you had been able to convict on a lesser charge (second degree murder or manslaughter) do you think the jury would have done so?

Edward Karst: They might well have. And that gets back to the idea that Watkins was given the second-degree murder plea bargain.

BooLikeMike asks: Did you see Amber Turner's mother blow a kiss to Rae?

Edward Karst: No, I missed that one. Somebody mentioned it to me after the trial was over. I must have just looked away at the wrong time.

Court TV Host: You were not sequestered. Was it difficult to avoid coverage and talk of the trial?

Edward Karst: It was. We kind of lost track of what was happening in the rest of the world, because any time somebody said Carruth on radio on TV, I had to shut it off.

hunterroo45601 asks: How much backlash have you gotten since the verdict?

sistah_souljah_69 asks: Are your family and friends or anyone for that matter giving you a hard time about the decision?

Edward Karst: Basically, it's been positive. And I think from the standpoint that we did convict on the three charges, he's not walking away from this. Everybody's been supportive as far as I know. I know there were some polls on TV. It was about 60 percent said no, the verdict wasnt right, but I'm not particularly worried about it. I think we did a good job.

Court TV Host: Any closing thoughts? I know you have to run to be on air.

Edward Karst: The only thing is: it's been a tough trial, and if I get called again I hope it's not another murder case. It's not a fun job.

Court TV Host: Thanks for being our guest today.