A Circuit Court judge declared a mistrial Monday in a manslaughter case in which an Ewa Beach man shot a rifle through his locked front door from inside his townhouse, killing an intoxicated 41-year-old neighbor, John Hasselbrink, trying to open what he mistook for his own front door.

Jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict, but there was some initial confusion when the jury foreman misspoke, seemingly indicating that everyone on the jury agreed Gregory A. Farr was “not guilty” of manslaughter.

The 37-year-old Army veteran went through a roller coaster of emotions, his attorney, Marcus Landsberg, said outside the courtroom.

“He has to do it all again,” Landsberg said. “You can imagine the roller coaster. First, he heard he has to do it all again. Then, he heard he was exonerated.”

Farr must face another trial. Judge Catherine Remigio said she will set July 18 for a new trial.

Farr, dressed in a white shirt, tie and black vest and dress trousers, was joined in the courtroom by his wife and daughter, who hugged one other when it appeared the verdict was not guilty.

Hasselbrink’s parents in California attended the trial by Zoom, since the court informed the state there was no room in the courtroom, as jurors and three alternates sat socially distanced due to COVID-19 precautions.

Farr was asleep on the living room couch at about 3:30 a.m. June 15, 2018, when he awoke to his barking dog and heard what he thought was someone breaking into his townhouse.

Jurors saw a videotaped interview a day after the shooting in which Farr told police detectives his 8-year-old daughter was asleep by a dog bed near the front door.

He said he yelled, “Hey,” to the man outside his door and could see the top of his head through the window at the top of the door. He heard clicking sounds on the door lock, and the thud of him pushing at the door.

After a night of drinking with friends, Hasselbrink had arrived by Uber, and had no keys with him.

Farr was on crutches because of surgery and crawled upstairs to retrieve a rifle, and told his then girlfriend to call 911. He realized his daughter was near the front door. He fired from the stairs across the living room and into the front door, hitting Hasselbrink in the neck.

Deputy Prosecutor Lawrence Sousie argued use of force was not immediately necessary, and Farr did not wait for police to arrive, and that Farr was aiming to shoot him in the chest and could have simply shot at his legs.

He said self-defense could not be used for manslaughter if Farr was reckless in his belief or reckless in acquiring or failing to acquire knowledge material to his justifiability.

Farr’s lawyer argued he could not get to the door fast enough on crutches, if the intruder broke in, and said Hasselbrink never said anything. Farr also did not recognize him since he lived a couple of buildings away.

Remigio said, prior to the initial entrance of the jurors into the courtroom, that they had communicated they could not come to an agreement on the verdict.

The communication came at about noon Monday after deliberating for a day and a half beginning Friday morning, after closing arguments Thursday afternoon.

The jury of nine men and three women filed into the courtroom, and Remigio questioned the foreman whether more time would help in reaching a unanimous verdict.

“I believe we tried and tried,” he said.

When the judge asked for a count on Count 1, referring to a tally of the jurors’ votes, the foreman seemed confused.

“The count that we were juggling on?” he asked.

“No, just the count,” she replied.

“I believe there was degrees of the counts,” he said.

(Jury instructions did allow for the jury to consider lesser charges of second- and third-degree assault and reckless endangering.)

When she asked specifically on Count 1, he said, “Not guilty.”

“Everybody?” the judge asked.

“Yes,” he replied.

After the jurors left the courtroom, Remigio said, “Sounds like they came to a unanimous verdict,” since Count 2, carrying a firearm in the commission of a separate felony, was dependent on Count 1, manslaughter.

Landsberg asked to move for a unanimous verdict, but Remigio said she would send the jury a written communication to clarify.

The court reconvened, and the jury foreman said, “I apologize for the misunderstanding.”

The foreman affirmed the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on either count.

Landsberg said he won’t be handling the next trial because he said he is leaving the profession and the islands.

“This is the last trial I’m ever going to do,” Landsberg said. “I stayed here to do this trial because that’s how much I believe in his innocence.”

Landsberg’s plans to buy a home and move to Japan “got delayed because sometimes you got to stand up for what you believe, and do what’s right.”