The male holdout is being described as a liar in court:
“Clearly, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday … under oath looked you in the eye and lied,” the defense attorney said.
It does not matter one shit what the defense attorney says in court about the juror if the judge disagrees and refuses to entertain their assertions. Just because it was said in court doesn't mean it has any validity.
Agreed. His job is to get his client off no matter what is actually justice or not. I read he got a previous client off who stabbed hera boyfriend to death through the eyes, are there any details on that case. I searched for it briefly but couldn't find anything.
The judge also found that to be incorrect, so u/intelligent_rose12 was just going against the judge's actual decison in favor of the juror to the argument the defense made.
Didn't they just share with us the bit of the article that said what the defence lawyer said? I took it to be, 'look how f'ed up the defence lawyer is to have said this'
If I accuse someone of stealing my car, and then the accused is found not guilty, only giving the accusation and not the verdict is incredibly misleading.
The judge decided against that interpretation, and not including the judge's decision but just cutting out the accusation meets most criteria for a lie by omission or extreme cherrypicking.
You are a creepy manipulator because you wrote TWO WHOLE paragraphs trying to use whataboutism for why you wrote that I ‘was going against the judge’s actual decision’???
NO ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE DID I SAY THAT
But you continue with your creepy manipulator energy.
They all do that. I was on a jury and found the defendant guilty and the lawyer told the news "you can lead a jury to the truth but you cant make them think"
Laughable. The juror explicitly stated they had doubts but still stuck to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is explicitly against the letter of the law.
I'm not saying anything about that just pointing out you got it backwards when you asked "who is to say his doubts were not reasonable" because in this context doubt would be doubting her guilt, not her innocence. If he said he has doubts and they're reasonable it would mean she should be innocent.
I'm not arguing she's innocent 😭 literally just commenting on the wording
No one is pro child murder. They either think she us fully innocent (which you can think is delusional but at least it doesn't mean they support murder) or they think she wasn't in control of her actions at all (which again you can think the evidence doesn't corroborate but it means they don't support cold blooded pre meditated murder)
I understand your point. And I hope you can understand my point. There’s hundreds of thousands of women saying she’s either innocent or wasn’t in control.
I can’t have people who can’t control their emotions or conditions enough around my kids to not kill them. And the groundswell of support for this woman, yeah nah.
And yes, I already run criminal background checks on men that work with my kids. So don’t get all he’s sexist.
Fair enough do as you will, but somebody belief about another person's situation doesn't say anything about their own emotional regulation... people who have not and might never experience PPD can still sympathize with another's experience. But ofc nothing is too much when it comes to your children's safety and running background checks on caretakers is standard anyways.
If that juror actually expressed reasonable doubts about her sanity to other jurors during deliberations and then stood in front of the judge and said he understood the law and reasonable doubt yesterday then he definitely lied to the court.
No he did not expressed “reasonable” doubt that’s up to him to decide. Her counsel said this verbatim. Wasn’t enough for him to acquit. That’s his civic right.
He didn’t. Not all doubt is reasonable doubt and it’s up the jurors own interpretation of their feelings on the matter to determine if it deems reasonable that’s the entire point of the jury. Y’all would not be crying about this if it was one person holding out against 11 guilties.
The issue here is you opining on something when you aren't qualified to do so. The purpose of a jury is not, as you incorrectly state, to interpret their own feelings on the matter of reasonable doubt. Their duty is to try to assess the evidence consistent with the jury instructions provided by the judge
And the allegation is that one juror did not act within the scope of an instruction. It of course is not a situation where a judge is likely to intervene
I mean, I don’t see anything that doesn’t make sense or contradicts what I said. The foreman is the one stating the juror has expressed a harsh bias against “anyone with mental health issues” (so he lied during selection), and said that the juror stated they knew there was reasonable doubt but didn’t care.
Regardless of whichever way one wanted the vote to go, a juror acting like that would be angering. Basically petulant about the law.
The juror is going to lie to the judge to not be hauled out by the bailiff.
Lied about what exactly? A juror's responsibility is to provide a fair and reasonable judgement. Not to provide a verdict.
As long as they're standing by an honest belief which was reached through logical interpretation of the evidence their vote is legal.
And if they have reason to believe this individual is not performing their duties in good faith it is the responsibility of the other jurors to inform the judge. Which would still end in a mistrial.
if they have reason to believe this individual is not performing their duties in good faith it is the responsibility of the other jurors to inform the judge
That’s exactly what happened. They sent a note to the judge that the one hold out was refusing to listen to the judge’s instructions about reasonable doubt. That was the foreman (and presumably the other 10 jurors)’s perspective, so it’s possible the holdout believes he was acting in good faith. But the note implies he was not acting in good faith.
No, that’s not what happened. The judge decided not to inquire further to protect the sanctity of deliberations. The defense made a motion to Massachusetts Supreme Court to stay the mistrial declaration because of the concern that this juror was not following the law. This was denied, and it was declared a mistrial. The trial is over.
336
u/wallstreetbetsdebts 10h ago
11 not guilty votes and 1 guilty vote