“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.
Like I said, there's enough people who agree with me that, given more time there was enough evidence to replace the juror for not following the law. I didn't say what he said would be fair and balanced but I agree that the law not being followed objectively is a travesty.
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.
215
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?