After eight full days of deliberations, the jury foreman in the John Hirko Jr. civil rights trial predicted Wednesday the jury will have a verdict by Friday.

The foreman made the statement at the end of the day in response to a question from U.S. District Judge James Knoll Gardner.

Gardner asked whether the jury was ''still on track at arriving at a verdict by the end of this week.'' The foreman replied that the jury was still on schedule.


The question and reply came as a surprise to the public and news media at the federal courthouse in Allentown.

Until Wednesday, Gardner had not disclosed publicly that the foreman had made such a prediction in a note on Monday. Gardner had only shared that note with the lawyers.

The 12 jurors are supposed to determine whether Bethlehem police violated the civil rights of Hirko, his fiancee and his landlord during a deadly 1997 drug raid.

In the last few days, Gardner has made it increasingly difficult for the public to know what's going on in the trial. He has not disclosed the contents of some of the jury notes. And he has repeatedly talked to the lawyers in his chambers.

It started Friday when he held a rare chambers conference after the jury reported in a note that it was deadlocked. Later that day, Gardner held a sidebar conference that could be partly heard in the back of the courtroom.

Asked after court Wednesday to explain the switch to chambers conferences, he told a Morning Call reporter, ''because I don't want you eavesdropping on them,'' referring to the sidebar conferences.

The sidebar conference that could be partly heard related to the then-deadlocked jury. The jury had reported in a note that it was deadlocked 10-2. Gardner has not disclosed details of that note to the public.

Police are accused of using excessive force by shooting Hirko 11 times, killing him. The police claim Hirko shot at them first, a contention Hirko's family disputes. The police also accidentally set Hirko's home on fire with a flash-bang distraction device.

Also Wednesday, the jury asked Gardner to re-read his explanation of an unreasonable search and seizure.

He replied, in part, that the use of excessive force could be considered an unreasonable seizure. To hold the defendants legally accountable, he said the defendants must have committed the acts intentionally or recklessly. Negligence is not enough.