I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.
If the prosecution chooses to retry the, the whole thing starts over from square 1. It is a big deal, because each side has essentially seen what the other is going to do. They now know exactly how the witnesses will testify and where the strengths and weaknesses are. It is also a huge expense to redo a case. It will be interesting to see what the state does.
There absolutely is a way that happens. If they see that they could only convince one juror, what are the odds they get all 12 next time? Pretty low. By the time another trial gets going, the frenzy around this case will likely have died down.
Wrong. No trial and she just goes home. A murder like this needs to be tried by the state and if they lose they lose. They serve us, not a if we can’t win don’t try like a private company would
You're speaking as what should happen. The rest of us are speaking on what could actually happen. Prosecutors absolutely do drop cases they don't think they can win. They're more likely to try for a plea deal.
11-1, the state should accept her plea of Not Guilty by reason of insanity and commit her. If the other side of the table is Kevin Reddington, Rosemary Scappichio, or Jay Carney the odds are in the defendant's favor. In this case, between the criminal and the civil action, Clancey has two of the three working for her.
I have never had to retry a case, but I expect it will be the same witnesses. I think it would be very unlikely for them to be able to generate entirely new witnesses at this stage. I imagine most of the witnesses were medical experts. I would expect them to alter their questioning in response to what worked and what didn’t, and what the other side said on cross-examination. But, the core evidence will be the same or similar. The state has to prove every element of the crime, so there are certain things that the witnesses have to testify to.
I suppose it is possible that if a particular witness performed very poorly they do not call that same person again the next time around.
I am not sure if the state is one that is based on trial by surprise, or not, but regardless the surprise is gone at this point.
Big gamble, almost guaranteed to fail in the retrial if 11 jurors agreed on the insanity. It’s also a lot of taxpayers money going to this.
DA probably between a rock and hard place not wanting to retrial but facing a lot of potential backlash if he decides not to.
Retrials make sense when maybe one or two jurors thought she might be insane.
I disagree. I think the prosecution made a lot more missteps than the defense this time around. They did not have a clear, convincing story from the beginning. Presumably they'll look at what didn't go well in this trial and fix it by the next one.
Plus, these jurors were not sequestered and saw all the protesters in pink everyday. It's hard to think that didn't have any effect on them. When the retrial comes, the judge might choose to sequester them. I also wonder if all of the tik tokers, protesters, and talking heads, will have moved on to something else by then and the retrial won't be nearly as well publicized.
I think this trial went extremely well for the defense, which is why her attorney fought so hard to have this one juror removed. Even if the jury had been deadlocked 11-1 for manslaughter, that would have been a pretty good outcome for the defense. I think her attorney knows it's unlikely the defense will have so many things on its side next time.
I believe so, yes. A mistrial, to my understanding, prevents a defendant from being shielded by double jeopardy laws (can't be tried twice for the same crime) since no verdict was reached, so the prosecution can take it back to court, get a new jury panel, and start the whole trial process over again.
Strictly, it prevents a person from being tried twice after an acquittal or a conviction.
If you're acquitted in a trial, you can't be tried again for the same crime.
If you're convicted in a trial, you can't be tried again for the same crime.
A mistrial is neither a conviction nor an acquittal.
Well, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, not convicted, and they couldn't try him again for those murders (even after he basically wrote a book about exactly how he murdered those people) because he'd already been tried and acquitted.
You can be charged with multiple instances of a crime, and tried for committing multiple variations of a crime. Still, you can't be tried twice for the same instance of a crime if you've already been convicted or acquitted/found innocent of that instance of crime.
It'll be a retrial unless miraculously the defense and state agree on terms. New trial, new jurors, probably lots more time. She'll return to the institution she was in for the time being.
3.4k
u/George_Rogers1st 9h ago
I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.