The jury foreman for the defamation case against former Butler County Commissioner Jim Eckstein says there was a verdict leading up to the mistrial declared April 29.

Christine Pflugh of Franklin Township, jury foreman, said in an interview at least 10 of the 12 jurors voted in favor of Eckstein on each of seven counts alleged against him.

Pflugh said when the jury was later polled about their individual votes, five jurors changed their overall stance by voting no.

“It wasn’t that we miscounted,” she said.

Pflugh said the jury was convinced Eckstein was not guilty of defamation against former county Commissioner Dale Pinkerton, county human resources director Lori Altman and her husband, state police Trooper Scott Altman.

“Everybody was in agreement to the verdict,” she said.

Eckstein was accused of spreading a rumor that Pinkerton got out of a drunken driving pullover by giving Lori Altman an extra 20 percent pay hike in 2011.

Pinkerton and the Altmans filed separate lawsuits against Eckstein that were tried simultaneously in an eight-day trial in county court.

Pflugh said all the jurors decided there was no evidence that Eckstein spoke about the rumor believing it was false.

She said the jury was going by the malicious intent aspect of defamation, knowing a rumor is false. According to Pflugh, the testimony indicated Eckstein either believed the rumor was true or could be true.

“I feel so bad for everybody involved, but it just wasn’t there,” she said about a case for defamation.

Pflugh conceded some jurors wanted Eckstein to be liable in some way.

“They were adamant ‘we want him to get something,’” she said.

Pflugh said Eckstein’s credibility was discussed.

“A lot of jurors thought he was being evasive answering questions,” she said.

Pflugh explained that’s why the jury asked Judge Kelley Streib about the definition of the count of (placing others in a) false light.

However, Pflugh said most jurors, albeit some reluctantly, agreed Eckstein did not do that either.

Pflugh said there was confusion when attorney Al Lindsay, who represents the Altmans, asked to poll the jurors.

“I didn’t understand what that meant,” Pflugh said.

She said she was then taken aback by the five jurors voting no during that poll. Then, Streib ruled a mistrial.

“When she declared a mistrial, it was a shock to me,” Pflugh said.

When the jury returned to the deliberation room, one juror lambasted the five who voted no, according to Pflugh.

However, Pflugh said none of the five responded.

“Every single one of them put their head down,” she said.

The jury subsequently asked to see Streib before leaving the building. Pflugh said Streib did not address concerns about confusion over the polling.

“She kind of thanked us for our time,” Pflugh said.

Streib could not be reached for comment.

Tom Holman, deputy court administrator, confirmed Streib met privately with the jury, but he was not privy to what they discussed.

Pflugh said the jury needed to be instructed what the polling meant as confusion caused the original verdict to be undone.

Holman said polling typically isn’t included in jury instruction, but it has not been an issue before.

“I’ve never seen that,” he said about polling causing a mistrial.

Holman said theoretically an attorney could propose the topic be included in jury instructions for a particular case.

Juror Kari Joyce, who voted in favor of the defendant during the poll, declined to comment.

Jurors Michael Wienand, John Keller and Francis Fitz, who were among the five who voted no, could not be reached for comment. Messages left at phone numbers listed under those names were not returned.

The remaining jurors could not be reached for comment.

Attorney Larry Rodgers, co-counsel for Eckstein, said he didn’t know if this jury was instructed about polling or not, but the confusion that occurred in this case is a concern.

“Juries are picked out of the general public,” Rodgers said. “Most of them have no knowledge of the court (process) or the law.”

Rodgers did not lay blame on anyone for the confusion.

“I think, on the whole, the jurors were very attentive,” he said. “I’m not sure how it happened, but I’m sorry it did because I understand we had a 12-zero verdict on no actual malice.”

Rodgers said that would have left no doubt of Eckstein winning the case.

Lindsay said he polls jurors as a standard practice, but he did not expect the resulting vote on April 29.

“I don’t know why people said no,” he said. “There appeared to be disagreement on the verdict.”

Lindsay said the point was moot when the jury spoke to the judge privately about confusion after the fact.

“We have to go by what they say,” he said. “If there was any confusion, it was not expressed.”

Lindsay said the jurors who said no did not seem confused.

He said the jury was clearly instructed 10 out of 12 people needed to be in agreement for a verdict to be reached.

Lindsay said he never saw polling overturn a verdict in his 45-year career.

“I’ve never seen anything like that,” he said.

Timothy Wojton, Eckstein’s co-counsel, also had not seen a roll-call vote cause a mistrial in his 39 years practicing law.

“I’ve never seen that happen in a trial in my whole career,” Wojton said.

He said only the jury knows what happened.

“Only the jurors can explain what happened there,” Wojton said.

He did not blame the jurors for the outcome.

“I don’t think any of them did anything wrong,” Wojton said.

He asked whether the jury was asked “Is this your verdict?” or “Do you agree with the verdict?” leading up to them voting 7 to 5.

Attorney Doug Linn, who represents Pinkerton, disagreed with Pflugh’s contention there was confusion based on the forcefulness of the no votes.

“It just doesn’t make sense,” Linn said.

Linn said he doesn’t trust Pflugh’s account of what transpired.

“There’s something missing there,” Linn said.

Lindsay said Pflugh’s view on Eckstein not being liable due to him allegedly believing the rumor true instead of false is flawed.

“The lawsuit is broader than that,” Lindsay said. “There was no indication it (the rumor) was true.”

Linn agreed the plaintiff’s case was made because Eckstein exhibited reckless disregard for the truth.

“He had no time to investigate this,” Linn said. “He spreads this as gospel.”

Pflugh said she didn’t care for Linn’s style nor the fact he informed Pinkerton about the rumor.

“I think he really got this whole ball rolling,” she said.

Linn defended his role, saying he was obligated to tell Pinkerton, who is a friend and client. According to Linn, Pflugh is mistaken to state he was trying to instigate a lawsuit.

“She should watch a little less television,” Linn said.

Pflugh expressed sympathy for all parties involved, particularly Lori Altman.

“She seemed like a really nice lady,” Pflugh said. “It’s just really a shame.”

Rodgers said future trials should include instructions about polling.

“We should take precautions in the future,” he said.

Lindsay would have no problem if polling was part of any jury instructions in a trial.

Wojton said he was pleased the defense still retained seven votes even after the roll call vote.

“I feel very, very good,” he said.

Linn said the end result of the vote is there needs to be a new trial.

“At the end of the day, we have to do it twice,” he said.