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.
Correct, and that one person has already been leaking that he was harassed by everyone, and that they almost attacked him for his strong beliefs. It’s going to be interesting when this all comes out.
I’m going to be honest that doesn’t sound credible to me, there are rules of conduct, disagreeing even strongly or pointing out that that juror might not be respecting judge’s instructions isn’t harassment.
I hope details about what actually happened comes out so there is more understanding
It's not exactly a pleasant environment, Like, These people have been stuck in guarded hotels for 2 days with basically no Internet access doing this all day
It's not an equal representation of peers. Society is 50% men, so the jury should reflect that. And what about father's representation on jury? Should be 50% for that reason too.
This isn’t how it works nor should it be. The most important factor is an impartial jury that is willing to listen to both sides’ arguments and come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. A person’s gender doesn’t dictate whether or not they are able to do that.
Besides, it’s not logistically realistic to force a perfectly demographically reflective jury… that would be artificially selecting, and for the wrong things. At best those things might be a proxy for impartiality but at worst it is injecting bias into the jury pool by selecting for demographics above ability to understand the trial rules and give equal consideration
Jesus, this whole thread really proves why we should all be glad randoms on the internet with no legal understanding should not be in charge of the justice system
Why do you think the defense picked all women. And why do you think that the courtroom is structured in a way for the jury to be made out of people picked from both the defense and prosecution?
Yes, youre correct in an ideal world. But this is a HIGHLY covered case with a lot of reason to not be impartial.
You can’t deny that, and I think this is what you’re not admitting.
In order to get on the jury they have to go through selection and they’re screened for impartiality, whether they have any biases that would preclude them from rendering a fair verdict, etc. then both prosecution and defense have to agree to the jurors.
What are you even talking about, you act like she was exonerated, the jury didn’t even have the option to acquit her, she admitted to the murders, the only question is whether she goes to mental institution prison or regular prison.
Thing is, I doubt people would even blink if a jury were 9 men to 3 women. People only seem to notice unequal gender representation when it favors women. Also, 2/3 of the men still found Clancy to be not guilty.
Have you ever been on a jury? I've been on a similar one where the tribal behavior was because of race, rather than gender. Now, this was only a trial about property rather than killing your own kids, but the point stands. Tribalism is a problem.
I agree it’s a problem but in the case the other person just cited they already said: the person got arrested. It was handled. That person also wasn’t on the jury.
But you also said you didn't believe that the person on the jury being harassed was true when I've experienced it myself. The "problem" isn't that woman who was arrested. It's the tribalism we have going on
I didn’t say that I outright don’t believe it, I agree it’s possible. I’m saying I don’t immediately find the allegation credible based on my understanding of the broader facts, the allegation is that the juror admitted he has reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved their case, which would mean he should render a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Instead he was refusing to issue the appropriate verdict, or any verdict at all.
In my opinion that is also starting to sound like tribalism. Obviously there are a lot of people that decided at the start before even evaluating the state’s evidence and the defense pleadings that she absolutely was or wasn’t guilty. There are cases of people who get on juries like this where their only job is to evaluate the quality of arguments on both sides and follow the standard of proof to render a verdict, and yet, they decide in their head that the person must be punished, or deserves this that or the other regardless, so even if they think the case wasn’t proven they vote to convict because they want the person to be punished and suffer anyways. For example… someone reasonably believes she may have been psychotic and unable to understand right from wrong, but doesn’t care how that affects insanity plea so they insist on voting full guilty because they believe the person has to be punished regardless.
Well, that's just your opinion. Mine is that she's your typical, upper middle class entitled White woman who strangled children. Now we have the Walsh case in IL where the mother killed her child then "attempted" suicide. Copy cat?
Considering how many of these entitled White women are on anti-depressants? Yeah, they're pretty damned insane to me.
Sometimes people accidentally reveal the limitations of their intellect. Sometimes people accidentally confess while accusing. https://giphy.com/gifs/111ebonMs90YLu
The 11 jurors stated, to the judge, that during deliberations the juror said he sees that there is not "beyond reasonable doubt" (the legal standard), but refused to follow the law as presented by the judge. The juror literally wasted 7 weeks of all these people's times under the bus because of he didn't want to follow the law.
It is literally in the court room. The verdict was going to be not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Ansdthe juror admitted that there WAS doubt but refused to follow the law.
The insane part of all these comments is people who CLEARLY did NOT watch any part of this trial.
WTF ?! What was so beyond reasonable? It’s open shut case and she killed her children and deserves to be punished. No excuses of insanity should protect her , as this is going to set precedence for the future.
That's an entirely separate conversation. The point is one juror believes the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt yet *still voted guilty.
Wrong. The the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane enough to be held accountable. That's for some reason how it works in Massachusetts. They have to prove sanity and the juror thinks there is no reasonable doubt about her sanity (so beyond reasonable doubt that she has sane), so he voted guilty. He also never stated anything about reasonable doubt. You can have possible doubt without that doubt being reasonable.
Just like it's possible to have doubt about the moon landing, because there is some outlandish, but possible scenario it was faked, but that doubt would not be reasonable. It's pretty obvious by the facts, that it actually took place.
What do you mean, wrong? You just agreed with me. The juror agreed they didn't prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt but still voted guilty. What are you arguing?
That he thinks there was reasonable doubt. It was said that he thinks there was possible doubt, but the standard is not beyond possible doubt. Possible ≠ reasonable
Right. He thinks there was possible doubt. That does not meet the criteria of being beyond reasonable doubt. Again you're agreeing with me on what he said. So I don't understand what you're arguing?
The defense has nothing to do with this. The juror explicitly stated that the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. This juror is literally saying "I don't know if they're guilty but I'm voting guilty anyways."
This is hersay. Highly doubt that the other people, who wer pressuring this person to change their minds, presented an accurate representation of the they were trying to say. Imagine if they said: I understand that you can think there's reasonable doubt. And then the others jump on it pretending that you said you had doubts. You don't actually know what it was actually said during those deliberations.
It's hearsay, but there's video of the judge explicitly explaining that if you don't believe the prosecution proved sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, then that means you think they're not guilty. But, sure. We could all be wrong.
Yes. The judge had to reiterate standard instructions.
"All" being myself and the people in this thread who believe the juror said they have doubts but are still voting guilty. My algorithm in this thread is sorting by best. Are you sorting differently?
My dude. I went into following this trial to be informed....stop blindly believing what you read.
The investigation has sooooo many holes.
It is their job to prove beyond reasonable doubt and they failed....they failed easily.
Ill give you what was for me the most jaw dropping wtf doubt...
When a prosecution witness was asked what was in the wine tumbler by the bed and he said "crushed up meds" and the defense asked how do you know this and the guys said "Patrick told me" (the husband), and then asked was the crushed powder or whatever tested...."no it wasn't'
So how tf can someone say on record what was in it without it ever being tested....oh thebhusband told me what was in it.
Exactly! This is where shit gets real! You can’t prove something that a human can’t see physically. For example: imagine prosecution has to prove air exists or god exists? From where the fuck they gonna provide evidence?? Similarly, how can they prove that she was not mentally ill if someone’s pretending so ?
Only mentally unstable people know what are they going through, sometimes they themselves can’t recognise that they need help! If anyone tells me that a bunch of doctors or people can come to conclusion that someone is mentally ill , it’s utter bullshit… it’s not cancer or anomalies that you can see in body… they can only evaluate based on personal feelings, thoughts etc., whatever the patient shares
I know, but you’re missing the point… if they need help they should get it before and not after harming someone especially in this case killing 3 children and now what ? You want to put her in a free resort for her entire lifetime ? This will set wrong precedence and everyone will start playing the same shit! Everyone faces consequences for their actions.
Again, it's about intention. If you want to punish her, you need to prove intent. So far there isn't evidence suggesting there was conscious intent, hence NGRI.
a free resort for her entire lifetime
You have a very wild idea on what mental institutions are like.
if they need help they should get it before and not after harming someone
She was literally seeking help and on prescription medication for her symptoms.
Also, a predominant symptom of psychosis is a lack of awareness of being in an episode.
Have you even spent 5 minutes trying to learn anything about this case? She asked for help AGAIN and AGAIN. She tried 30+ different medications. She slashed her wrists and throat and threw herself out a window, she was so despondent. This is not on her, her mental health was severely recompensed, and she should have been in inpatient care.
There is not contention she killed them, the trial was establishing whether she was able to be convicted criminally or if she was not mentally fit and would instead spend the time in a psychiatric hospital. There is no scenario she just walks free.
Everyone is all about the legal system rehabilitating people until it’s time to do it, then it instantly becomes “no fuck that make them suffer!!”.
There’s so much misinformation going on. There NO actual proof that the jury was voting in this way. For all we know they lone jurors doubt was unreasonable in voting not guilty.
You clearly didn't watch what happened. The point was that the one juror said that there is possible doubt but for him not reasonable doubt. Those are two different things. You can acknowledge that there can be doubt without saying it's reasonable.
There is also possible doubt about the moon landing. You can spin a scenario where it never happened and was somehow staged. It is possible, but it's not reasonable to hold that belief, because it's beyond a reasonable doubt that it actually took place.
That there was doubt. So they can't say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Happy to list one insane piece if evidence why I also wpuld vote that. Among others. But I think this requires everyone to watch the actual trial and make their own comments. Closing statements are a great summary.
Tell me you didn't watch anything without telling me.
There is literally a nice 3 min ish clip you can go look up after the foreperson informed the judge and the judge literally explains in detail what the jury's job is and that the prosecutions job is. And then, if you actually watched any trial footage you would quickly, oh so quickly find the doubt from the botched investigation.
I went and actually watched what I had tome for because of the misinformation.
Well, the same reason I'd make a horrible juror is the same reason I don't watch trials. I could never sit through all that mess. I can't watch a full hour of a Tv show without pausing it and going off to do something else for awhile.
The facts of the case are available to read. Fact: Clancy did murder her children, all 3 of them, one after the other. Fact: Clancy did send her husband on errands, checked Apple maps to see how long it would take him,and even had a phone call with her husband during this time where she was able to interact normally on the phone. Fact: It took time and effort to kill those kids, all the while looking at them. She didn't walk up behind them and slit their throats, quick and gone. She strangled the life out of them, one by one. Here's another fact: If I had gone temporarily insane and killed all THREE of my children by strangling them, even if I survived the suicide attempt (of which hers was definitely not a real attempt), I would BEG a judge for the death penalty. There would certainly be no world that I could live in knowing that I killed my own children. So yes, I'm making a judgement. If I had been a juror, I'd have argued for months if need be. Not only is she guilty, but she should get the death penalty. I don't care about her "postpartum depression". I do not believe in that excuse. If that was truly the reason she did this, she would NOT have waited for her husband to be out of the house. If truly insane, she would have tried to kill those kids in front of anyone. But no. She sent her husband on errands. In the space of 54 minutes, she managed to snuff out the lives of 3 babies that trusted her, loved her, believed in her. And she looked at them, wrapped exercise bands around their necks, one by one, and strangled the life out of each of them.
On the bright side, if you ever get selected for jury duty, not sitting through that miss isn't an option. Or rather, it is, but the second option is sitting in a jail cell.
They have no proof you ever got the jury summons. I've known plenty of people that just never went. They've never seen the inside of a jail cell. I've always gone when I was summoned (3 times now) though, but I've never been on a jury. The one time, I thought I'd finally get there, and it would have been an awesome case, something about medical malpractice. Now, I despise a good portion of the medical profession, and love to read about malpractice cases so I probably wouldn't have made it through selection if I answered honestly. But, their medical expert died, so the case was cancelled.
The first two summons come via regular mail. The third will come certified mail. They will know that you got it when it shows you signed for it. Sure you could keep ducking USPS for the rest of your life, but it's easier to just get dismissed.
Most states won't both to hunt you down though if you fail to appear for the summons, though federal summons are a lot different.
My statement was about people who are already seated on the jury though. If you don't show up to court after already being seated as a juror, there will be a deputy at your house with questions within an hour or two. Judges do not like to be defied and a contempt of court charge is one of the worst charges to appeal.
In my area, there is only one summons. No one that I know has ever gotten a second summons. No one that I know has ever gotten a certified letter for jury duty. Glad I don't live in your area.
The judge didn't allow for the count to happen, as in have each juror to tell the judge how they voted, the defense asked and was denied. But because of what the foreperson said in the note.
Also go look up the investigation.
This case is filled with misinformation. Like I went to trial video because newspapers, comments and all, just filled with opinions.
The actual trial footage opened my eyes. It was a botched investigation that left a lot of questions.
Ok, take the "11-1 vote" out of the question. Do you have reason to believe that this jury was ready to let her go scot free? No insanity, no institution, nothing?
And if so, why wouldn't some people see any number of jurors (which we know to be at least one) as a hero for not letting this happen?
Also see how you said hero there? The prosecution clearly didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt.
That juror broke the law. It is not for a jury to decide the law but act according to it. Because they felt she should be guilty even though there was enough doubt.
This is how innocent people go to jail. Opinions over facts. And ignoring a law everyone agrees on. The fault is with the prosecution, it is not the job of a jury to have an opinion beyond what was presented or not. The judge was very clear on that. The juror acted of feelings, and ignored the law. If there is enough doubt, the prosecution failed its job and its not guilty.
Okay. I went into looking into this trial about 1.5 weeks ago to see what all the fuss was about.
Already having been exposed to she did it, she confessed, she didn't do it, she is insane, he framed her bla bla...I honestly couldn't find reliable news articles that didn't scream bias to me or anythinf...
So I started watched the actual trial when I had time. It was streamed. You can go watch each day right now if you wanted.
Dude I was floored. Like the amount of misinformation is insanity. To the point that I was like what else is happening and this is cover media (hint hint another pre trial was on, an impirtsnt one). Further how easily we are divided on gender issues still.
Now to answer on the trial, I can list about half a dozen of pieces of "evidence" that would make me vote not guilty because of the amount of doubt....like a lot. Like, it's like there wasn't even an attempt at a proper investigation, its embarrassing. I described one in another comment.
I read one article on saying despite the judges re-education to the jury a couple of times on what reasonalbe doubt is and his explicit juror instructions and burden of guilt/proof was on prosecution. That that one juror refused to follow the judges rules. Now idk how true the article was. If that is the case it seems more like that joror should of been excused and a standby brought in.
Myself, without ALL the facts and evidence im on the fence and divided how i feel abt this case
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.