BALTIMORE — A Baltimore judge declared a mistrial in the Stricker Street fire trial after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict following five days of deliberations.
James Barnett, 58, was on trial for the 2022 fire that killed three Baltimore City firefighters and seriously injured a fourth. On Oct. 20, WBAL reported the jury sent the judge a note saying they were split and unable to reach a decision.
| WEBINAR: Putting EV fire tactics to the test
Earlier in the trial, the Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office dropped three counts of second-degree murder against Barnett. The judge ruled the state had provided sufficient evidence for the jury to potentially find Barnett guilty on the remaining second-degree arson, involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment counts.
The jury considered nine criminal counts: one count of second-degree arson for the fire at 205 S. Stricker St. just before 11:30 p.m. on Jan. 23, 2022; three counts of involuntary manslaughter for the deaths of the three firefighters killed when the structure collapsed; and five counts of reckless endangerment covering three additional injured firefighters and residents of neighboring homes who were displaced.
The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on any of the charges.
The note was the second time during the trial that the jury told the judge it was unable to reach agreement on the charges against Barnett. After jurors first reported being deadlocked on Oct. 16, the judge instructed them to continue deliberating in an effort to reach a verdict.
Prosecutors said Barnett was at the scene wearing a blue-and-yellow coat and had admitted being there that night. They pointed to surveillance video, along with testing and analysis from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, allegedly showing Barnett entering the rear of 205 S. Stricker St. at 11:23 p.m. and applying four flashes of flame during an eight-minute stay.
Barnett’s defense countered that the state failed to prove he willfully and maliciously set the fire or knowingly disregarded a risk. The defense said Barnett’s coat was blue and brown, not the blue-and-yellow coat seen in surveillance video, and that Barnett repeatedly told investigators the person in the footage wasn’t him.
The defense also challenged the ATF’s evidence testing, arguing nothing occurred after the four flashes of flame and that no fire was visible when the person seen on video left the scene. Attorneys maintained the person of interest and Barnett were not the same person, saying the state never resolved the discrepancy over the coat because doing so would undermine its case.
