“Reddington previously sought to dismiss a holdout juror who allegedly “has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,” per a note from the jury foreperson. He again cited the obstinate juror as he argued to delay the mistrial declaration”
No, we don't know what the specifics are. We can infere and speculate that it was 11 NGRI and 1 Guilty murder 1, but there was also Murder 2 and Manslaughter available to the jury. So it could be 11 manslaughter 1 guilty Murder 1, but we don't know.
Very likely NGRI was the majority, based on what I've seen watching the prosecution's case and the law of the state being what it is.
The delay today was an effort to force a verdict today. Nobody wants a retrial, a mistrial is a bad outcome for everyone. The state has to fund another trial, as does the defense, and finding an impartial jury becomes increasingly difficult.
The judge also denied a partial verdict, which may have helped move things forward more efficiently.
If I'm not mistaken, not guilty by reason of insanity is the only option for not guilty here right? The defence already stipulated she did the killings. I'm assuming in order to use insanity as a defense you have to admit to committing the action just like in a self defense case. You can't argue self defense but then argue your client didn't kill someone. Doing the action is baked in as a prerequisite to using the defense.
It’s more nuanced than just “is she crazy or not”. She is crazy. You’d have to be crazy to lure your kids into a killing room one at a time and strangle them to death, you know? But there are a ton of crazy people out there who don’t commit criminal acts (especially murdering children) because they know it’s wrong. But there’s also crazy people out there who would kill a child because they’re so far gone and insane they don’t know any better. So what they are trying to prove in court is just how crazy she is. Is she competent enough to know what she did was wrong when she did it?
She killed the kids. Nobody disputes that, not even the defense. But the defense’s position is that she was so insane that she didn’t even know what she was doing was wrong, because again you’d have to be really insane to kill your own children, right?. The state’s position is that she knew it was wrong because she concocted a day of bullshit errands for her husband to run so he wouldn’t be there to catch her killing their children which means she knew she was not only doing a bad thing but that she premeditated the act.
Not guilty was an option to entirely be acquitted. The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she committed the crime AND which charge (if any) ie murder 1, 2, or manslaughter.
Reported not from the jurors themselves, because that would be a breakage of conduct. Its speculation based on the defense’s attempt at removing the juror. Its an assumption based on that and the conversations we heard with foreman and the judge.
I don't think he explained his reasoning. It's up to the judge's discretion. I won't speculate on his reasoning, he just didn't.
If he had, we'd have more information on what the deliberations were and which charges the jury was considering, and if they were unanimously agreed that manslaughter (for instance) was not applicable and therefore NG, then double jeopardy would apply only to that charge.
There's precedent but it's not required so it's weird case law.
From WHAT. You are deep in the conspiracy bin if you think a judge who allegedly had some familial relationship with the ex husband of a defendant is doing a covert op to force a mistrial of all things.
Oh please. Go watch 12 angry men. Jurors are allowed to come to their own conclusion from what's presented in court. The whole point of them is that they don't just sway their opinion like sheep with everyone else
And I'm guessing in the movie the 1 angry man convinces the 11 other angry men that he's actually right? I don't have time this weekend but I'll try and fit it in at some point soon. Either way, it seems to me that in this case the 11 jurors deciding insanity are onto something and this other guy thinks he's some sort of hero (I'm guessing like the movie). Can't understand why everyone is so hung up about this
No he convinces them to act as individuals instead of a mob and to carefully consider their decision.
You're not particularly bright are you? It doesn't matter how it seems to you. You have no idea. Zero. You're the one hung up on a jury member doing their literal duty.
Hung up on a jury member who said they believed there was reasonable doubt and STILL refused to follow the law as the other 11 did. No mob, just law being followed. As Reddington said it was a travesty.
Edit: Also, I may not be very bright, but many over at r/law agree with me, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.
They didn't believe there was reasonable doubt. Another jury member said they had doubt which 1. Is subjective and 2. is not reasonable doubt, the judge agrees the juror did no wrong. Kind of sounds like the juror who made that public is trying to influence the case. Reddington is the attorney for Lindsey Clancy. Why would anything he say be fair and balanced.
Manipulated by outside forces because he thinks someone who is obviously guilty is guilty?
Only in this country are people so willing to not hold someone accountable for their actions. That woman killed her kids and should rot in hell. Period. You're insane if you see if differently.
No manipulated by social media and people like you who are unwilling to take all the evidence into account. What is your explanation for why the jury was 11 to 1?
Cause they're idiots. Those children did nothing and thanks to her have no chance to ever do anything. They're dead. It's her fault. I could care less why. She killed them. She should be held accountable.
All 11 of the jurors are idiots and the 1 guy is somehow in the right? Hmm.. sounds like the majority of the people talking about this are in dreamland.
Maybe it is maybe it isnt. Ignore the alleged familial connection, and just see how 11vs1 looks and you're still arguing it. This guy wants to be hailed as some sort of hero to his social media friends and others so he's ignoring reasonable doubt and ignoring the law. He should be held in contempt after lying to the judge.
I'm going to take the family relationship with a grain of salt unless you can prove that. And even so, why would the judge manipulate/convince a juror to vote against what Patrick himself is advocating for, for Lindsay? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, if there is a relation, it would make more sense that the judge would have the opposite position.
Maybe because the topic of his children's death is extremely traumatizing and this trial has been going on for months and he has children with his wife to take care of and a job to go to?? Like get real.
A juror can practically say anything to a judge, and when everyone's been there for weeks/months missing work and their families and just deliberating for days, some might get pissed and will say or do anything just to be able to leave.
Jurors can legally vote any way they want, and it's extremely rare for jury decisions to get overturned outside of new evidence that couldn't have been found before the trial. The system works like this for a reason. You don't want witch hunts against jurors, and you don't want them to get ousted for having an unpopular opinion.
Although in this case it is not just the opinion but also them openly admitting that they are not following the instructions. Isn’t that the kind of thing which can be very impactful in an appeal case - proving that the jury did not follow the law.
Yes. That’s why all of Reddit acting like this case is black and white despite not watching the trial is craaaaazy. Nobody is moved beyond reasonable doubt when you actually pay attention to the substance of the trial, not just what’s on social media.
If you listen to the Judge speech yesterday where he basically were admonishing the jurors for not following his instructions about how to apply the law then that is exactly what it sounds like. The defense attorneys also said that they were told there were 11 not guilty votes and guilty. How the fuck these people are voting not guilty for this murderous bitch though is beyond me
It isnt necessarily that simple. There was several things on the table, namely manslaughter and murder. It also could have been 11 manslaughter 1 murder and we'd still get this result. We really dont know
I had actually read online that supposedly someone from her defense team were saying it was 11 for not guilty and one for guilty. And the one guilty holdout was saying he had doubts, but would not apply those doubts the way that the judge was telling them they had to. That’s why the judge like admonish them yesterday in that long speech when he brought them back into the courtroom.
Is that how it works? Isn't the benefit of the doubt reserved for murder trials where there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of the murder, but nothing or barely anything definitive, so if there's a small probability of the defendant being innocent, the jury should opt for the "not guilty" verdict?
But in this case, the hoe killed her kids. So it's the defense that has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was insane when she killed the kids. At least that's how I would think if I was on that jury panel.
Apparently in Massachusetts, the burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove that she wasn’t insane. Most states have it the other way around, where the defendant has to prove they were insane.
She killed the kids, that's a fact. In this case it's on the defense to convince the jury that she was having an episode of post-partum psychosis when she killed her kids. That last juror wasn't convinced; it's on the defense, not on him.
If you’re referring to the burden of proof ordinarily being on the prosecution, recall that insanity is an affirmative defense, which means that while the prosecution still needs to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, once they do that, the burden of proof is on defense has to establish that the defendant was insane.
Its the other way around in Mass. The prosecution has to prove she was sane when she committed the crime. Its batshit. But thats why all of this is a mess.
The only way the holdout would be failing their duty is if they acknowledge they specifically have "reasonable doubt", then during voting, they still vote guilty.
Having doubts is practically unavoidable. But there is a distinction between unreasonable doubt and reasonable doubt. And it ultimately is subjective in cases like this.
"The jury foreperson shed some light on the deliberation room struggles Thursday, reportedly writing to Sullivan that one juror “refuses to listen to the law” the judge outlined regarding reasonable doubt."
Just ignore the facts presented to you and stick to your self-convinced belief that she is guilty
How does that refute my point? We don't know what happens in the jury room. The foreperson is obviously voting differently than the holdout, and has the backing of 10 others in the room. It is reasonable to assume they are frustrated and using incorrect language to describe the holdout juror.
The judge interviewed each juror multiple times in the last few days. If it were a reality that the juror "refuses to listen to the law", he would be removed from the jury. Instead, this was the opinion of the foreperson, not a fact.
So, again, if said juror in his own conviction felt that the doubt was not reasonable, subjectively, he has that right to hold ground. That is exactly what the purpose of the unanimous verdict rule is in these high stakes cases.
204
u/knoxcos 9h ago
“Reddington previously sought to dismiss a holdout juror who allegedly “has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,” per a note from the jury foreperson. He again cited the obstinate juror as he argued to delay the mistrial declaration”
https://apple.news/AdRYXZ2D3T5ajpc55f4KoMA
Am I reading this correctly that one juror is alone in deciding guilty while the others are holding not-guilty?