One day after a 12-member jury convicted Don Blankenship of conspiring to violate mine safety and health standards, conflicting accounts of the jury's deliberations began to emerge.
While juror Bill Rose stood behind the panel's decision, he had hoped the former Massey Energy CEO would be facing a harsher penalty.
"I think we did the right thing," said Rose, one of the four men to serve on the jury. "I wish it would've went a different way, but you know it didn't and we came to an agreement on that and that's how it ended."
In an interview Friday, Rose discussed several key elements in the trial, including the defense's tactic to rest without calling a single witness.
"That was huge. I couldn't believe that," Rose said. "I was kinda looking forward to seeing what they had, and I think that would've had a big change in everything."
Rose said he thought the move signaled one of two things: Either the defense team was "cocky" in saying the government didn't have a case against Blankenship or that the possibility of calling a witness to the stand would've dug their client into a deeper hole.
"We'll never know," he said.
Similarly, Rose said several jurors were hoping to hear directly from Blankenship instead of only relying on the audio recordings he made of himself.
Rose said after U.S. District Judge Irene Berger's issued an Allen Charge on Dec. 1, which included telling jurors they could return a split verdict, the jury reached a decision on the first count.
"I think that brought into perspective the result that we got," he said. "It also mentioned that the minority listen and consider what the majority has and the majority consider to what the minority has and we did that and we talked about it and we came to the conclusion of guilty on the first count."
Rose said several jurors were hesitant to convict Blankenship of other counts because of the fact that they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
"We just couldn't come to a conclusion on the other things. The 'strive' and 'condone,' it was worded perfectly for him to cover all bases in my eyes," he said.
Ultimately the disagreement between jurors led the jury to convict Blankenship of one count and acquit him of two others, a fact that Rose said - although he would've liked a stiffer sentence - he had come to terms with by the end of the jury's 10-day deliberations.
"I'm just glad that we got that," Rose said. "I mean, I don't think that anything is really going to happen to him. If it does, that's great. If not, it is what it is."
When asked whether the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster played a part in jurors deliberation process, Rose said it did not. He said the jury stuck to the charges contained in the indictment and the evidence presented during the trial.
He once again reiterated his desire for a tougher conviction, saying, "I wish we could have got more, you know, because I know - I would assume that since the other ones were felonies - he would ultimately get more fines or jail time but that's not how it went down."
Rose said the government's use of a confidential memo from former Massey Energy ventilation expert Bill Ross helped convince him that Blankenship was guilty on all counts.
Rose also said several jurors were uncertain what to make of former Performance Coal Co. President Chris Blanchard's testimony, especially after lead defense attorney Bill Taylor's multi-day cross-examination.
"It drew attention away, it was just so boring. But they make big bucks so they know what they were doing," he said.
Rose, who works as a machinist at a urethane plant and lives in Hico, drove 118 miles each day during the trial. While he said he's never served on a jury before, Rose said he hoped the Blankenship trial would be his last.
After spending about 50 hours together inside a jury room with no windows, one refrigerator, microwave and snacks, including soda pop, coffee, water and donuts each day, Rose said the panel had become "like family."
While he declined to provide the names of his fellow jurors, Rose complimented their work, including the forewoman, Pam Carte, who he said volunteered for the position.
In a Friday interview with WSAZ-TV, Carte painted a different picture of the jury. She said the first three or four days of deliberations were contentious and that there was "yelling and screaming."
Carte said she was leaning towards finding Blankenship not guilty but felt testimony from Blanchard suggested Blankenship was involved in a conspiracy, which ultimately led to her to change her mind.
While defense attorneys on Thursday said they felt the jury was coerced into reaching a decision, Carte and Rose said that was not the case.
On Nov. 30, the jury's first day back following a five-day Thanksgiving break, Berger called jurors into the courtroom to give them an additional instruction.
"In your deliberation room every juror should be able to express an opinion if he or she desires to do so," the judge said. "You should be respectful of your fellow jurors and you should all treat each other with courtesy."
That instruction came on Nov. 24, the day before the Thanksgiving break, after the judge held a closed-door meeting with lawyers in the case.
In written motions made public by the court on Dec. 2, the defense team had on Nov. 30 cited that closed-door meeting - calling it a "voir dire," or a questioning of a juror - asked Berger for a mistrial. The defense also asked the judge on Nov. 30 to instruct jurors that any of them could communicate directly with Berger through a note, according to another motion not made public by the court until Dec. 2.
The judge has not made public details of what was discussed during the closed-door session on Nov. 24.
Ken Ward contributed reporting to this story.
Reach Joel Ebert at 304-348-4843, joel.ebert@wvgazettemail.com, or follow @joelebert29 on Twitter.