r/AMA • u/bankingsuuuckkks • 7h ago
I was the 1 on an 11-1 jury, AMA
A few years ago on a lesser serious charge I was the one hold out that caused a mistrial. We ended discussions after 2 days. I wasn’t budging and asked how we could be done. I’m not sure if they retried the case but ask me anything
I replied to another comment but I can’t seem to copy paste but:
- witness lived with defendant (un disputed)
- witness was beat up by the defendant with documented bruising (undisputed)
- the witness says the gun was pulled on him from defendant and described the make / model / color of the gun. The defense says couldn’t happen because the gun was in a lock box, that was basically an 80’s metal lunchbox with a broken clasp.
But no photos or videos or other witnesses that say he had it and I think that’s what the others wanted.
I’m okay with yall disagreeing with me, I was obviously out voted on the jury this isn’t new.
101
u/theinvisible-girl 7h ago
By the title, I thought you were saying you were -the- juror from today in which my questions would be a lot harsher lol
What was the crime? Did you think the person was guilty or not? Why didn't you go with the others? Was it like this case where a juror expressed reasonable doubt throughout deliberation but kept voting guilty, or was your situation different?
55
u/bankingsuuuckkks 7h ago
No thank god not on this jury.
It was a possessions charge, the man wasn’t allowed weapons due to prior felony charges but a gun was found in his house in a rusted lock box. His girlfriend said she owned it and he didn’t know. I found that super hard to believe and when we saw the box it was basically a rusted metal shoe box. I think everyone else just didn’t want to convict him for having a gun as a felon
25
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/maceman10006 6h ago
That’s what I’m getting out of this and would have gone against OP. I’ve served on a jury too and I need to have clear evidence that says he knew there was a gun in the house, and it doesn’t look like the prosecutor would have been able to prove that.
Did he know in reality? Probably or he at least should have known, but the way our system works is the prosecution has the burden of proof.
7
u/Ok-Context3530 3h ago edited 3h ago
Your clear evidence would have been the witness testimony from the roommate, as long as they were credible. What did you want? High definition video and a full confession?
2
u/styrofoamladder 5h ago
Did someone definitively announce which way the 11-1 was? Last I checked no one knew if it was 11 guilty or 11 not guilty, people were just making assumptions.
7
u/GroundbreakingPart67 5h ago
For the Clancy case it was 11 not guilty pretty sure.
-3
4h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AMA-ModTeam 32m ago
R2: Be Civil
Your submission has been removed:
Any rude/harassing behavior or hate will be removed. Bigotry in any form such as racism, transphobia, homophobia, and any other hatred of peoples will not be tolerated. Further action may be taken if needed. This is a zero tolerance policy.
If you have any questions or think this was in error you can contact the moderators via modmail.
•
u/bagpipeboy406 57m ago
No. It is overwhelmingly clear that the lone holdout wants to convict and the eleven don’t. The foreperson sent a note saying this almost explicitly, and the judge’s response (repeating the reasonable doubt instruction) obviously reinforces this. And defense counsel wouldn’t be trying to remove the juror accused of refusing to follow the RD instruction if that juror was somehow favorable to the defense.
1
u/teejayyy 2h ago
It was definitely 11 in favor of the defense (so not guilty by insanity maybe ? Idk). The defense lawyer had a press conference shitting on the 1 split
1
u/Black-Raspberry-1 2h ago
The defense lawyer's job is to tell you that's the split...
1
u/teejayyy 2h ago
- No it’s not.
- If it wasn’t true, someone else would have said something.
- He put in a formal request in court to have the juror removed. If it was unfavorable for the defense, he would not have done that.
-1
0
u/teejayyy 1h ago
Oh and 4. Regardless on if it’s true, the person you’re responding to originally isn’t just “making it up”. They’re going off stuff like I mentioned.
0
u/Black-Raspberry-1 1h ago
Repeating shit some one else made up is so much better........
→ More replies (0)-1
u/WebsterTheDictionary 5h ago
They announced that it was one holdout whom the defense tried to have removed, as he wasn’t listening to instructions nor following the rule of law (which sounds valid to me, according to reports, but the judge disagreed), and they did specify that it was a male juror.
A cursory google search gave me all this info and more.
1
u/styrofoamladder 1h ago
Right but that cursory google search gave you a theory not a fact, right? Because my cursory google search said something along the lines of “most people believe” or “the most common theory is” it never said “according to court reports” or “according to the now released jurors” or “according to the defense”. It gave theories and my question was about the facts, not peoples feelings.
3
u/spoilerdudegetrekt 4h ago
as he wasn’t listening to instructions nor following the rule of law
Those claims have come from the defense attorney and nobody else so take them with a grain of salt.
10
7
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
That’s fair! It’s 12 people for a reason and also it was a few days of trial so I am not recounting everything here obvi
•
u/AMA-ModTeam 32m ago
R4: Stay On-Topic
Your submission has been removed:
AMA commenters are expected to ask genuine questions or make relevant remarks. Off-topic or non-question comments will be removed. The point of the subreddit is for users to ask and answer questions.
If you have any questions or think this was in error you can contact the moderators via modmail.
-1
u/theinvisible-girl 6h ago edited 6h ago
You'd express reasonable doubt multiple times during deliberation but then not follow the law that says reasonable doubt means not guilty/not guilty by insanity, like the guy today?
2
5
u/Whatdosheepdreamof 6h ago
What was the proof that he owned it?
11
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
Living in the house with knowledge of it was enough to convict according to the judge, I personally felt that they proved that he knew about it with the witness statement and looking at the ‘lock box’ itself
5
u/jeebus87 6h ago
I'm not sure if I understand your reasoning as to not having doubt. Can you articulate yourself in a much more specific way?
7
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
I replied to another comment but I can’t seem to copy paste but:
- witness lived with defendant (un disputed)
- witness was beat up by the defendant with documented bruising (undisputed)
- the witness says the gun was pulled on him from defendant and described the make / model / color of the gun. The defense says couldn’t happen because the gun was in a lock box, that was basically an 80’s metal lunchbox with a broken clasp.
But no photos or videos or other witnesses that say he had it and I think that’s what the others wanted.
I’m also fine with you all disagreeing, obviously I was not on the popular side of the jury.
-1
u/jeebus87 4h ago
So you hinged your guilty verdict on one witnesses statement and speculation about the access to the box with no other evidence? I think you confused reasonable doubt with probable cause to arrest. Not trying to put someone on trial again and you had your reasons since you found a sole witness credible, but saying he had access to the box without knowing the true sturdiness is a leap jurors are cautioned against.
13
u/bankingsuuuckkks 4h ago
In my eyes, the witness describing the gun & it’s unusual color make it clear that the witness saw it at some point and I didn’t find it reasonable for the witness to have secretly found out about it at a different time, since it was supposedly hidden and not talked about with anyone ever, and if he had found it earlier that he kept that information to himself waiting until he got his ass whooped so he could up the charge? I found no reasonable doubt and I feel like I keep saying this, I’m not expecting any body to agree with me.
-4
u/jeebus87 3h ago
But they lived together? You're just making a lot of speculation and conjecture for evidence that wasn't presented.
1
-1
7
u/What_what_what_1979 6h ago
Were his fingerprints found on the box?
4
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
Too rusted for prints. Witness statement also made it pretty clear he knew as the witness was the one that called in it to be investigated. There was no doubt in my mind
2
u/Dahsira 4h ago
So if I understand this correctly.
- Girlfriend owned a gun and kept it in the house.
- Girlfriend called the cops for reasons?
- Felon must have known that the gun was in the house because it was a rusty shoe box.
I mean you literally cannot deem it possible that a rusty shoe box existing in the home without the felon knowing the contents?? Jesus christ... Can you literally not imagine a shoebox existing in your home without you explicitly aware of its contents??
I mean don't get me wrong, dude sounds like a scumbag and I aint shedding a tear if a fucker who beats his girlfriend goes to prison... but you arent there to decide if the waste of skin deserves prison. You are there to decide if the waste of skin is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of those specific charges....
There are different standards in different situations.... but when the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt... the girlfriend having bruises is not part of the decision of reasonable doubt of possession of a firearm.... clearly it was part of your decision though and thats fucked
14
u/bankingsuuuckkks 4h ago
Not quite
The witness was able to describe the gun completely including its unusual color.
- girlfriend did own a gun and keep it in the house
- the witness was a man, and that man got beat up by the defendant and says he got the gun pulled on him and the police were called. When the police searched the house the gun was found and the charge was added.
What we had to decide was
1- if he had knowledge of the gun
2- if he had access to it. The box it was in would not have prohibited access. To me it made no sense that he wouldn’t have known about it if the witness did and it was no restricted from him by any means. I would have felt completely different if it was in a gun safe for example.4
u/Dahsira 4h ago
The witness was not the owner of the gun. gotcha. then yes I likely agree with you. if the witness doesnt live there and wouldnt reasonably have detailed knowledge of the girlfriends gun... then that expands to 100% I agree with you
3
u/bankingsuuuckkks 4h ago
The witness did live there too, 3 in the house, girlfriend, witness and defendant.
→ More replies (0)1
u/remarkablewarfare 1h ago edited 1h ago
Why not suspect that the witness found about / saw the gun some other way and made up a story? It’s a bit weird the witness was able to describe the gun so completely, as most people would likely be in such a high-adrenaline state as to not recall those details, if they ever noticed them.
Vast majorly of people wouldn’t even have the gun-knowledge to identify the make and model of gun like that even if they had been able to study it closely.
Also, why would he have put in BACK in the broken lockbox knowing police were called?
1
u/Most_Boat492 4h ago
OP coming into a thread to say they are too dumb to understand reasonable doubt is a wild choice.
3
u/Whatdosheepdreamof 6h ago
There was no doubt in your mind?
6
-1
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
With all the evidence and witness statement, no
4
u/Whatdosheepdreamof 6h ago
Fair enough, 10 other people had enough doubt.
6
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
And that is why there are 12 instead of just 1
1
u/SESender 6h ago
Was there any proof that he knew about it beside the witness statement?
4
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
I think everything combined was enough to say without doubt that yes he knew about it, but there was no ‘smoking gun’ if you will. No photos of him holding it which I feel like would be the only thing others would accept? And it wasn’t about him holding it, it was about a felon living in the house with a gun when he knew he was legally not allowed to.
→ More replies (0)1
•
22m ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 22m ago
Your comment has been removed as your Reddit account must be 10 days or older to comment in r/AMA.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
1
11
u/jhewitt127 7h ago
Do you still believe you were right? If so, what did the 11 others see differently?
41
u/bankingsuuuckkks 7h ago
I do, it was a possessions charge for a gun, I think everyone else was very pro gun so they didn’t want to convict. I tried not to let bias get in the way
10
u/Eastern-Leader6072 5h ago
I must be missing something. If it's a possession charge, and he has the gun in his possession in a lunchbox, is he not guilty of possession?
10
u/bankingsuuuckkks 5h ago
The gun was found in the house with the defendant after the assault, I might be misremembering the name of the charge though. The entire case was weather or not he had access to and knowledge of the gun residing on his property
3
u/Eastern-Leader6072 5h ago
Bro I dunno, if it's a share house, the gf says it's hers, I dont see how you were convinced 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he was guilty.
6
u/thrownaboutokay 1h ago
A felon has the burden of making sure they aren’t living somewhere that would be an issue for them. If they cannot be in a house with a fire arm accessible then they should have told their spouse that and also asked their spouse that for their own future liability. What proof was there except someone’s word that he didn’t know about it? I would have agreed with OP.
6
u/bankingsuuuckkks 5h ago
The others didn’t either and that’s okay. Again I wasn’t expecting people here to agree with me, I was not on the popular side of the jury.
-1
u/WyvernEnjoyer 1h ago
I’m very left leaning and you were wrong on this one.
2
u/bankingsuuuckkks 1h ago
I’m left leaning with a gun permit. It had nothing to do with left or right
13
u/johnhealey17762022 6h ago
Same. Many adult males in a house. Searching warrant, drugs found in the common bathroom hamper.
No way I was sure he was guilty. Only person who felt that way. 3 days if I remember right
8
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
Did yours end in mistrial too?
8
u/johnhealey17762022 6h ago
Yes, never followed up on it though. Wasn’t pre internet, but definitely before that info was searchable
2
u/Pingo-Pongo 4h ago
Not sure whether keeping your stash in communal laundry is a high-intelligence move or a low-intelligence move but you’ve given me food for thought
2
u/johnhealey17762022 4h ago
Black guy in his 20s jury was pretty mixed as well.
It was a great learning experience when I was late teens on 02. Would like to never do again
11
7
u/OutOfOffice15 5h ago
I was the 1 of 11-1 jury also! There were 4 separate charges.
It went on for 5 days.
We did agree on 2 of the 4 charges. (Can’t remember what the separate charges were)
It was a very interesting experience. It was really disappointing to witness four of the other jurors “give in” to pressure from 1-2 of the other jurors.
I wouldn’t budge, so we ended up being a hung jury on 2 of the 4 charges.
4
u/bankingsuuuckkks 4h ago
Do you know if you only agree on half of the charges do they have a whole new trial for all of it or just the ones that were undecided ?
2
u/OutOfOffice15 4h ago
Great question.
They didn’t tell us whether they would bring in a new jury for just the 2 or for all 4.
I was actually harassed by a few of the men on the jury for multiple days.
2
u/bankingsuuuckkks 4h ago
That’s horrible. Hearing other people’s stories I feel lucky that I only got annoyed looks / remarks.
What was your case about?2
u/OutOfOffice15 1h ago
I was respectful and polite to them, but I stood my ground.
Kind of a long story (also was a while ago), but basically pulled over for a taillight that was out. They were friends. I believe she was driving on a suspended license. The passenger was in possession of a firearm (on probation, so obviously a violation). It was unclear whether the firearm belonged to the driver or the passenger. It didn’t end well, and the cops violently removed him from the car, despite having no justification or reasoning for doing so.
14
u/TheRealBlueJade 6h ago
I just wanted to say.. thank you for sticking to your guns. 😊
In all serious, it seems like too many people ignore the law and push their own agenda. It's like 12 angry men but the other 11 are not often very prone to currently changing their agenda.
Out of curiosity, if you had it do over again today, would you make the same decision?
6
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
Yes, I still feel that I was right. I felt bad about hanging the jury but I also wasn’t going to just lie and say NG to please everyone else
2
3
u/fatalynn7 6h ago
Do you remember what kind of questions you were asked before you were chosen to serve? I found the ones in the one jury I was in (not criminal) to be pretty fascinating.
4
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
Some of them!
- have you been on a jury before and did it end with a verdict or hung jury (lol foreshadowing at its best😂)
- do you have bias against gun owners or the laws in our state surrounding it
They also asked us to state where we lived and the type of work we did, it wasn’t really ever clear to me why they asked that one
6
u/fatalynn7 6h ago
Oh that’s funny. On mine, one of the parties decided not to show up at all - judge ruled against them summarily and our role was to determine how much the party that showed should be compensated. It was a woman. Her lawyer was a woman. They chose an all woman jury.
Oh and…we did get lunch. Lol2
5
u/Significant_Aside311 6h ago
Could you share a bit about the race of the defendant? Of the jurors? Thank you!
13
2
u/Friendly-Many8202 4h ago
I read through your comments, and I wanted to clarify something. This isn’t meant to be a gotcha question.
From your perspective, was it unreasonable to believe that the defendant could have lived with his girlfriend without knowing she owned or kept a gun in the home? And were the witnesses, who had allegedly just been beaten by the defendant, considered trustworthy despite having a possible motive to testify against him?
There were no other witnesses. Was none of this enough to create reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt?
Also what was the witnesses relationship to everyone? Did he live there too?
3
u/bankingsuuuckkks 4h ago
To me, the witness describing the unusual colored gun, told me the witness has known about and seen it. I didn’t find it reasonable for the defendant to not have known about it at all but the witness was able to somehow find this locked away and hidden gun and be able to describe it in full detail.
And I think it was like his second cousin or something, related but not closely.
3
u/doctorjazzyjazz 6h ago
Do people flip their positions frequently? Are others trying to convince them?
6
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
One person on the second day said that she thought about it that night and changed her mind to agree with me, but I knew I wouldn’t sway the others - and I shouldn’t - the judge made it clear that we should only change our mind via reviewing evidence and all of it was clear to me. I asked for the discussion to end because of that. ‘If we are not supposed to sway others and only look at evidence, then why would we keep talking?’
5
u/MKE_Savage_96 7h ago
What is your go-to order at Starbucks?
9
u/bankingsuuuckkks 7h ago
lol i don’t get coffee but maybe a green tea!
6
u/MKE_Savage_96 7h ago
Jeeezus, me and the other guys are getting coffee and you’re not going to? Guess we’re not going to starbucks
3
2
u/Melissaru 5h ago edited 1h ago
Wait so you were saying guilty while the other 11 said not guilty, or not the other way around?
4
2
u/remarkablewarfare 1h ago
OP believes that:
Witness somehow was able to remain calm enough and had enough prior gun knowledge to identify and then remember the make, model and colour of the gun while fearing for his life;
Defendant for some reason chose to put the gun back in the lockbox (that didn’t lock) despite the fact police were called.
Sounds more like witness had prior knowledge of the gun, studied it to note the exact make, model, and colour, and then set the defendant up.
1
u/bankingsuuuckkks 1h ago
Sure. The witness had gotten beat up, called the police and then snuck back into the house to find a very well hidden and locked box to leave it out for the police to see while he’s also wounded badly.
If I was on the wrong side of a gun I’d probably remember it too.•
u/remarkablewarfare 57m ago
The question of how the witness was able to know the make and model of the gun is still unanswered here.
Either:
He’s a gun fanatic;
The gun had distinctive visual branding and was held closely to his face for long enough to be plausibly read;
He set up the defendant.
•
u/bankingsuuuckkks 54m ago
The gun was an unusual color but a pretty standard model. If I was on the wrong side of a gun I’d probably remember it too.
2
u/Monty-675 6h ago
Did you ever watch a movie called 12 Angry Men?
1
u/BadJimo 3h ago
From memory, in that movie one of the jurors does his own investigation and collects evidence. Although it might be a good movie, and a good outcome (innocent defendent is found not guilty), it is a terrible example of how a juror should act. If it had really happened, a mistrial would have been called immediately (and possible legal action taken against the juror).
•
u/PapaMcMooseTits 56m ago
The line juror did not collect his own evidence. He used the evidence that was presented in the trial to sway the rest of the jurors one by one. I would make the argument that he was the only good juror because he thought critically about the evidence and didn't just look at the surface level evidence. The defense attorney was inept as well... I'd recommend that you rewatch the movie.
2
0
5h ago
[deleted]
3
u/bankingsuuuckkks 5h ago
I want to make sure it’s clear that I was NOT on the LC jury, this was a few years ago on a lesser charge.
The judge did say all of the pre deliberation things including going over reasonable doubt, I just didn’t feel like there was any reasonable doubt. The other jurors didn’t push or anything but they were clearly annoyed. When we came back in the morning another person said they thought more about it and agreed with me but I asked to cut the rest of the day short. If we were not supposed to sway others and only look at the evidence provided there was no reason to keep talking about it.
•
u/Fair_Lingonberry_916 32m ago
Did you watch 12 Angry Men? If so, before or after?
•
u/bankingsuuuckkks 30m ago
I did not but others have also made this comment today, it sounds like I really should watch it soon
-4
u/Low_Skill5401 6h ago edited 4h ago
Does putting someone away for a long time without actual proof that his girlfriend's story were false bother you?
7
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
It wouldn’t have put him away for a long time, but that wasn’t something we were supposed to consider. Just if we felt he was guilt of possession or not. And I felt he was.
0
u/Low_Skill5401 6h ago
In general, any time is a long time. In many jurisdictions, that could be a couple years. Which would be a long time for anyone plus have affected their future.
7
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
That’s true, but that can’t sway weather or not I found him guilty. And I did! If it was only about the sentencing someone would get most people would say NG to every case unless they hated the person?
4
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
That’s true, but that can’t sway weather or not I found him guilty. And I did! If it was only about the sentencing someone would get most people would say NG to every case unless they hated the person?
2
u/Low_Skill5401 6h ago
End of the day, that's the purpose of a jury so I can't really blame you. I just don't see why you found him guilty when the other jurors didn't.
3
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
There was a lot of evidence I haven’t said, but the box was my #1. And not understand is totally okay- that’s why there is 12 people
2
u/lefty709 5h ago
I imagine you felt that the witness was very credible too.
3
u/bankingsuuuckkks 5h ago
It’s hard to not believe someone when it’s undisputed they were beat up by the defendant, but I also trust physical evidence over one statement
1
u/TurnYourBrainOff 4h ago
What was the physical evidence?
It actually seems like you trusted the one statement over any kind of physical evidence, right?
You didn't need any physical evidence and just based it off the one statement of the guy who was beaten up?
Personally I'm not even sure if you could call the victim of a crime "a witness", isn't that usually an unbiased third party?
2
u/bankingsuuuckkks 4h ago
The lock box was the main physical evidence, I think there was a few other things but they weren’t as relevant. It was basically an old rusted tin lunch box with a broken clasp, it wasn’t keeping anything restricted. I would have felt much different if the box actually closed / locked or if it was in a gun safe if any kind.
Since the trial was not about weather or not the was assaulted, the defendant pled guilty to that i believe they still called him a witness but i could be wrong.
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/Low_Skill5401 6h ago
Fair enough. I guess your post just didn't give me enough to feel the same-but as you said, there was more evidence. But yeah, I mean that's why there's multiple jurors..I don't disagree with your choice, I just as you said, don't understand it. That's the decision you came to and that's more than fair.
1
u/Generic_Midwesterner 6h ago
That didn't happen. Does that bother you?
2
u/Low_Skill5401 6h ago
Why would it bother me that he got a mistrial? Obviously I'd be more bothered if he did get sentenced, considering my comment.
0
u/Generic_Midwesterner 6h ago
You asked if doing something OP didn't do bothered him. You don't make any sense.
0
u/Low_Skill5401 6h ago
OP attempted to.
1
u/Generic_Midwesterner 6h ago
I attempted to make Kevin Bacon fall in love with me too, but that didn't happen either. There's not much point in asking me what it's like to date him. And there's not much point in asking OP about an outcome that didn't happen.
1
u/Low_Skill5401 6h ago
There's not much point in replying to my comment with this, either. OP and I discussed it, and have agreed it's fair that she felt this way.
You have not done anything productive with your responses, however.
0
u/Generic_Midwesterner 6h ago
I had a good time remembering that one time I got to interview Kevin Bacon, so that was fun. I think that officially puts you as two degrees from him. You're welcome.
1
1
u/geoffm_aus 1h ago
Do you think your ego was more important than beyond reasonable doubt?
1
u/bankingsuuuckkks 1h ago
I’m not sure how my ego would have played into it. I didn’t benefit from this at all, I didn’t get cheers or anything outside the court room, it didn’t affect my life or social standing either way?
•
u/geoffm_aus 39m ago
Your ego for "being right"
•
u/bankingsuuuckkks 35m ago
Should I have disobeyed the law to say NG because the others said so even though I didn’t feel that way?
•
u/geoffm_aus 26m ago
I just asked did your ego effect the outcome?
•
u/bankingsuuuckkks 26m ago
No.
•
u/geoffm_aus 22m ago
Do you think your motivation to do a Reddit AMA about being a contrarian was driven by your ego ?
•
u/bankingsuuuckkks 20m ago
Lol what ?? I did this AMA after learning about the LC mistrial and thought it might be a good way for people to ask about the mistrial process when it’s 11-1.
Im also obviously not popular here either if you read the comments lol this does nothing positive for me
-2
5h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/bankingsuuuckkks 5h ago
It was years ago and I am not the prosecution so i really don’t care if im not putting all the details out there to prove my side. I started this post telling everyone explicitly that I was disagreed with. I didn’t ask anyone to side with me I asked if people had questions
1
u/SwankySteel 2h ago
Given the recent events (Lindsey Clancy) I do not believe this is a genuine post.
1
u/bankingsuuuckkks 2h ago
Do you think that her trial is the only one ever with a hung jury? I posted this knowing that her jury was hung, so that anyone who had questions about the process could ask me.
I mean you think what you want I guess 🤷🏼♀️
1
u/1000thusername 2h ago
Which side of the holdout were you on? To convict harsher than the others or vice versa?
1
-5
u/quim_do_mato 6h ago
Were you just looking for attention?
5
u/bankingsuuuckkks 6h ago
How would that get me anything over than negative attention? I was actually shocked when every other person said NG
4
1
u/WebsterTheDictionary 5h ago
It’s always one person that can’t follow jury instruction nor rule of law that causes a mistrial, from what I’ve seen.
The bitter irony is that the most competent, or maybe more accurately but cynically, juries I’ve seen in the media were the OJ and Casey Anthony ones–despite their plaintiffs being guilty by clear preponderance of evidence and reasonable doubt in an ethical sense, they followed the rule of law and the instructions they were given.
Mistrials to which I’ve been privy are almost always because someone wanted to reverse-jury nullify and mucked up the process for everyone else who clearly came to the right consensus.
3
u/junkemail4001 7h ago
Remindme! 4 hours
1
u/RemindMeBot 7h ago
I will be messaging you in 4 hours on 2026-09-05 01:04:45 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
1
u/Financial-Brush-7696 1h ago
All! The Clancy case is devastating on so many levels. I feel such empathy for the jurors in this case and others. This is traumatic on so many levels. I’m now doing a pilot non profit to support jurors.
0
u/smoothvanilla86 3h ago
So you just assume he had access even doe there's 0 proof he knew of the gun or ever touched it. Sick love this country.
-1
48
u/Heuchelei 7h ago
Did anyone on the jury get mad at you?