Before he went to trial for a second time, Father Andrew McCormick had a big decision to make.

The district attorney, according to sources, was offering a pretty sweet deal: if Father Andy would plead guilty to all the charges, he would have been put on probation for five years but not have to serve any jail time. He would, however, have to register as a sex offender under Megan's Law.

Father Andy was facing long odds. He was a Roman Catholic priest accused of sexually abusing a 10-year-old altar boy 18 years ago. If convicted on five sex charges, the 59-year-old priest was looking at a jail term of 25 to 50 years, meaning he was going to die in jail.

Father Andy, according to sources, turned down the deal, saying he was innocent and that his fate was in God's hands. So the priest took a big gamble and elected to go to trial a second time. No wonder Father Andy and his supporters, which included a couple of nuns in full habits, were often seen in the hallway outside Courtroom 1102 in a prayer circle saying the rosary.

Today, the second trial of Father Andy wound up just like the first one, with a hung jury. Just as she did on March 12, 2014, Judge Gwendolyn N. Bright declared a mistrial after a jury announced it was hopelessly deadlocked. Last year, the jury deadlocked after 4 1/2 days of deliberations. This time, one day short of a full year later, the jury deadlocked after three full days of deliberations.

The judge also announced that she was keeping in place a gag order for another 30 days, to give the district attorney time to decide whether to retry Father Andy a third time.

On Tuesday, the jury sent the judge a note saying they were at an impasse. That prompted the D.A. to sweeten the offer. If Father Andy was willing to plead guilty today to a charge of corrupting the morals of a minor, according to sources, he was looking at no jail time, four years of probation, and he wouldn't even have to register as a sex offender under Megan's Law.

But, according to sources, the priest turned down the deal, saying I can't plead guilty because that would be a lie; I'm innocent.

This afternoon after lunch, the jury that had been impasse asked the judge for a read back on the testimony of the alleged victim. Specifically, the jury wanted to know whether the alleged victim's "clothes came off during the incident," the judge said.

The judge had the court reporter read back the testimony of the alleged victim, on direct as well as cross-examination.

Once again, the jury heard the details of the alleged crime. How, 18 years ago, in 1997, the priest allegedly lured the 10-year-old altar boy up to his room in the rectory. Then, after he locked the door, the priest allegedly attacked.

Father Andy began to touch the altar boy's genitals and buttocks while he "helped me undress and he undressed too," the alleged victim testified.

"His stomach was right up against my face," the alleged victim testified. He watched as the priest slowly unbuttoned 32 buttons on his black cassock. Then, according to the alleged victim, the priest exposed himself and twice tried to jam his penis past the altar boy's clenched teeth.

In the read back, the alleged victim had to admit on cross-examination that in 2011 when he gave his first statement about the alleged crime, he must have told his grandfather, a retired detective, that the priest "took off my boxer shorts."

But when he gave a subsequent statement to a detective from the district attorney's office later that year, the alleged victim claimed that the priest took off all the altar boy's clothes but left the boy's boxer shorts on.

On cross-examination, defense lawyer Trevan Borum reminded the alleged victim that before the priest attacked, the altar boy remembered eating two cookies, right?

"Correct," the alleged victim testified.

And you remembered that what type of cookies they were, Borum said, namely, two vanilla-flavored, cream-filled cookies, right?

"Correct," the alleged victim testified.

And you remembered drinking a Dr. Pepper, right?

"Correct," the alleged victim testified.

Well if you could remember those kind of details, Borum said, shouldn't you remember whether the priest took off your boxer shorts or not?

"I was nervous," the alleged victim testified. He said he didn't remember telling his grandfather that the priest took off his boxers shorts, but if it was down on the report he must have said it.

"It was my grandfather," the alleged victim testified on cross-examination. "I was a little boy."

At the defense table, Father Andy stared straight ahead. In the second row of the courtroom, the alleged victim, a 27-year-old gay man, was sitting next to his grandfather, watching the replay.

For a jury already at an impasse was this reasonable doubt? The alleged victim first saying the priest took off my boxer shorts, and then saying the priest left them on?

By 4 p.m., after hearing the read back on the testimony, the jury was back in front of the judge saying they were hopelessly deadlocked.

The judge asked if jurors were confused about any points of law that she could explain to them.

"No, the foreman said.

The judge asked if there was any chance that further deliberations would result in a unanimous verdict.

"No, the foreman said.

The judge declared a mistrial. She asked the jury foreman to stand and give the result of the jury's deliberations on each of the five charges.

The district attorney had charged Father Andy with: involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, indecent assault of a child, and corrupting the morals of a minor.

On each count, the jury foreman said, "No verdict."

The judge asked the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Kristen Kemp, if the D.A.'s office had decided whether to retry the case.

A year ago when the judge asked that same question, Assistant District Attorney Kemp's immediate response was, "Yes, Your Honor."

This time around, Assistant District Attorney Kemp said her office would need 30 days to make that decision.

Meanwhile, in the mistrial, there were no winners.

Father Andy left the courtroom looking relieved but because of the gag order, he was not able to talk to reporters. He remains on administrative leave with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which means he cannot administer the sacraments publicly or present himself as a priest in good standing.
In the hallway outside the courtroom, the mother of the alleged victim hugged a relative. Members of the family were overheard talking about whether the truth would ever finally come out. But because of the gag order, they couldn't say anything either.