The Christopher Deedy jury sent nine notes to the court during its roughly five days of deliberation.

At least that is what state Circuit Judge Karen Ahn said in open court Thursday before acquitting Deedy of murder and declaring a mistrial on the remaining charges the U.S. State Department special agent was facing.

Except for the last two, in which the jurors reported that they were deadlocked, Ahn has yet to release the contents of the notes.

A Hawaii Judiciary spokeswoman said Ahn will make the notes available on Monday.

Honolulu media lawyer Jeffrey Portnoy said withholding the contents of the notes violates what the Hawaii Supreme Court said in a recent opinion.

"The Supreme Court made it very clear: Communications from the jury, unless they unfairly prejudice a defendant to a fair trial, must be released at or shortly after the time they’re (the jurors) released," he said.

Portnoy represented the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now in petitioning the high court to order Ahn to release the transcripts of five hearings she closed to the public and media in Deedy’s first trial last year and to prevent her from conducting more closed hearings in the retrial.

By the time the Supreme Court justices issued their opinion last month, Ahn had already released the transcripts. And the justices refused to impose conditions to prevent her from conducting more closed hearings.

All five justices, however, reaffirmed the public’s and the media’s right to monitor criminal court proceedings.

Ahn’s staff posted minutes into the Deedy electronic court records indicating that the jurors sent their first note to the court on Monday. The minutes do not indicate the content of the note. They do say, however, that Ahn held a discussion with the lawyers about the note by telephone.

The minutes make no mention of notes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7; when the jury sent them; and what kind of discussion, whether by telephone or in her chambers, Ahn held with the lawyers. The first time anyone other than the parties in the case became aware that there had been other notes from the jury was on Thursday, when the lawyers stated in open court the objections they previously stated off the record to whatever responses Ahn had already given the jurors to those notes. Ahn also stated on the record the reasons she had already given them for not accepting their suggestions.

Portnoy said those discussions should have been held in open court.

"It is my view that messages from the jury have no basis for secrecy," he said.

He said any discussion not held in open court constitutes a closed hearing.

The state Supreme Court said in its opinion last month that courts can have closed hearings only after making specific findings that "there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced" if the hearing is not closed, and that reasonable alternatives "cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights."