Sentence Set for Manslaughter Case, But Verdict Dispute Takes Center Stage
Aaron C. Fisher was sentenced to 90 months in prison Tuesday for the voluntary homicide of 70-year-old Richard Madeo. While the prison term drew attention, the real legal significance emerged from a minor annotation on a jury form—and the presiding judge’s established approach to jury deliberations.
On March 31, 2026, Clallam County Superior Court Judge Brent Basden declined the prosecution’s request for a mistrial on the second-degree murder count, effectively preserving Fisher’s acquittal on that charge and sparing him a potential retrial.
The prosecution had sought to vacate the murder conviction without prejudice, arguing that the jury never formally reached a decision on the more serious offense. That request followed the discovery of a handwritten note on Verdict Form A: “hung,” scribbled beside the crossed-out words “Not Guilty,” with the foreperson’s initials confirming the strike-through.
According to earlier reporting, the jury had been directed to indicate “guilty” or “not guilty,” or simply leave the form blank should they remain deadlocked. Instead, they opted for a more explicit signal—marking their position, then striking it, and annotating their internal impasse.
Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Michele Devlin flagged the anomaly while drafting the final order and filed a motion asking the court to declare a mistrial on Count 1.
Judge Basden, however, dismissed those concerns in a written ruling, asserting the jury had fulfilled its obligation simply by documenting its divided state. He observed that the term “hung” was functionally equivalent to silence, especially given the instructions provided.
Basden further explained that rehearing the matter at that stage would have run afoul of procedural norms. Citing Criminal Rule 6.15, he noted that judges ought not prompt juries to revisit conclusions already expressed unless prompted by a formal inquiry. Without an explicit question from the jurors, he warned, reintroducing deliberation could subtly steer them toward reconsidering a decision they’d already settled on.
He also pointed to the post-verdict polling, in which each juror individually affirmed the form’s outcomes as representative of their collective judgment.
This stance reflects Basden’s broader judicial pattern: he has previously faced appellate reversals over how he guided juries during deliberations, sometimes with significant fiscal consequences for the county. His caution in intervening mid-deliberation appears consistent with lessons from those prior rulings.
The Washington State Court of Appeals has a history of reversing decisions made by Judge Basden, a trend highlighted in earlier reporting this past January. A significant example occurred in *State v. McGee*, where the appellate court identified a critical procedural error in the jury instructions. In that instance, Basden added an alternate juror after deliberations commenced but did not explicitly direct the reconstituted panel to begin their discussion anew. This omission led to a mistrial and the subsequent reversal of the conviction.
The handling of jury procedures has become a central issue in the current Fisher case. The prosecution argues that the judge’s failure to conduct a proper colloquy deprived the state of a lawful mistrial on the second-degree murder charge. Conversely, Basden contended that further instructions might have unduly influenced the jurors.
The Final Sentence
Having resolved the initial mistrial debate at the trial level, Basden proceeded to sentence Fisher on the lesser count of first-degree manslaughter. The judge imposed a prison term of 90 months, followed by 36 months of community custody.
Fisher’s defense counsel, a local attorney appointed to the case at public expense by Basden, had advocated for a reduced sentence of 78 months. The prosecution successfully argued for the 90-month term.
With the matter of the hung verdict form and the second murder charge remaining unresolved, the state is anticipated to file an appeal. This move will likely result in higher courts examining the trial judge’s adherence to courtroom procedure once again.