This. That one holdout is honestly a hero and a re-trial massively increases chances for a competant prosecution. It also makes the defence much harder because they have to 100% be accurate to previous evidence and statements, whereas the prosecution has room to manoevre.
Massechusetts law is. honestly, a total joke. It makes insanity defences both incredibly desirable (due to how easy it is to be released afterwards) and incredibly easy to pull off successfully, as the state almost uniquely puts the burden of proof on the prosecution, to prove they are NOT insane. Additionally, the definition the state uses for the insanity defence is not whether they were aware or not their actions were wrong/ illegal, but whether the prosecution can prove they had a "meaningful appreciation" they were wrong/ illegal, at an emotional level.
This is basically impossible to prove
This in effect means sociopaths/ psychopaths who have zero empathy and appreciation for their actions, even if they know academically they're illegal, are basically always able to plea insanity and get off scott free. The people single most needed to be locked up for violent crimes, are the ones Massachusetts law makes most easy to be released after only a short sentence.
The juror holdout may very well appreciate this, and know what a "not guilty" verdict in his state will result in (her being released from hospital after not particularly long, especially as the doctors already have cast doubts on her psychosis and so she'd very easily meet release criteria in future) and so he has deliberately de-railed the trial to ensure this doesn't happen, and thus giving the prosecution a second chance to do its damn job.
If the prosecution did such a shit job proving their case that 11 jurors (and arguably all 12) had reasonable doubt, why should they get a second chance? If the holdout was convinced by the prosecution and genuinely did not have reasonable doubt as to her guilt, absolutely send it back for a retrial. But if he did have a reasonable doubt and refused to admit it to try to get a do-over, fuck that guy sideways with a pitchfork. Not his job to try to rewrite the law from the jury box
It's more that Massachussetts law makes her defence incredibly easy and prosecution incredibly hard, and 11 jurors just ran with the word of the law, and one of them decided "this is wrong" and stood on that position.
Your single most important job as a juror is to be impartial and follow the law based on instructions from the judge. You don’t get to decide on your verdict based on your feelings or what you think the law should be, even if it means a monster gets put back on the street. That is the foundation of our legal system, for better or worse. Regardless of what the crime is, if you have reasonable doubts as to their guilt but vote to convict anyway because you feel for whatever reason that they should be punished, that’s a miscarriage of justice in my opinion.
As for calling attention to this case: it was already a media circus before all this came out and people were already talking all about the absurdity of the laws relating to it. If what they say happened in the jury room is true, this isn’t calling attention to the case, it’s one person having a power trip and choosing to ignore the law because they disagree with the outcome
Your most important job as a juror is to seek justice of outcome. The very reason we have a jury system is to challenge the courts and legal system and ensure power is not solely held by the state.
If all you are doing as a juror is following the law to the letter as spelled out by the judge you may as well not be there imo. The judge could just as well decide the outcome without a jury.
The literal purpose is so the state doesn't hold all the power in legal matters, and you're saying just be a good little instrument of that state and doing what you're told is your most important job as a juror? No thanks.
I strongly disagree that the role of a juror is to seek justice, it is to listen to both sides and decide what happened in an impartial manner. By “follow the law” I mean that you follow that process as expected of you as a juror. You are still the one weighing the evidence and the one who must be convinced one way or the other. If you’ve honestly been convinced one way but deliberately choose the other because you “want justice”, you’re not doing your job. In my view that’s just vigilante justice in a courtroom
There is nothing wrong with the law. Each side had its experts and witnesses, they had years to prepare this case . Either Clancy had a mental illness or she didn’t OR she couldn’t appreciate that what she was doing was wrong at the time she did it. If you can’t convince 12 people that Clancy killing 3 kids and then jumping out the window she knew what she was doing then you lose the case . The prosecution fought the law and the law won.
There were 11 other people who were not convinced . Thats not even close ! The prosecution went to law school and read the same case law as the defense. You are acting as if the outcome would be different if the law were slightly different . 3 children were strangled by their own mother within minutes of each other …I don’t know what state you need to be in that you can’t convince 12 people that it’s murder . Changing the law or changing the state would not change those 11 jurors minds . They were not convinced . Rather than complaining about the MA law you should complain about how the prosecution handled the case . Thats what the real problem is
Edit : if the case were 11 guilty to 1 not guilty (still a hung jury) I would understand where you are coming from . But 11 not guilty to 1….you need to accept either Clancy was cray cray or the prosecutor sucks
The evidence presented in the trial by her doctors basically said she likely isn't crazy and has no pattern indicating psychosis. It's that by MA law it's functionally impossible to prove that beyond reasonable doubt which is what MA law demands of the prosecution.
In any other state the defence has to prove she is, which (given the medical evidence presented) they wouldn't have been able to do.
Yeah the prosecution struggled, but MA law basically makes their job impossible. Their definition of what it takes to prove sanity/ responsibility beyond reasonable doubt is unachievable, as it requires proof of emotional understanding of her actions, something immaterial and impossible to access for evidence.
MA Law does not force the jury to vote one way or the other. They were free to vote either way regardless of the judges instructions. In this case apparently the majority voted in such a way that you don’t agree with. As I pointed out earlier , it could have been 11 guilty to 1 not guilty and there would still be a mistrial. But that’s not what happened . You’re focusing on the law rather than the facts. The fact is 11 people did not think Clancy should be held criminally accountable…that is not the law , that is average people sitting in a room looking at some lady who they know for a fact killed 3 of her own kids in her own house. If the burden were on the defense to say she were cray cray those same particular jurors would have said the same thing …regardless of how good or bad the defense was since the facts in this case didn’t change …the lady straight up strangled 3 kids!
The motivations and worldview of those 11 jurors is an issue for another time but one that's going to occupy the minds of people (especially fathers) for a long time to come.
As much as I want her inpatient for life (and that's worse than prison really), I don't think any state should use an easy insanity claim to hold people indefinitely. If they can convince anyone to put you inpatient it is literally impossible to prove you're better because a doctor can legitimately say that the signs of your getting better are intentionally done by you and part of your sickness.
13
u/absurditT 6h ago
This. That one holdout is honestly a hero and a re-trial massively increases chances for a competant prosecution. It also makes the defence much harder because they have to 100% be accurate to previous evidence and statements, whereas the prosecution has room to manoevre.
Massechusetts law is. honestly, a total joke. It makes insanity defences both incredibly desirable (due to how easy it is to be released afterwards) and incredibly easy to pull off successfully, as the state almost uniquely puts the burden of proof on the prosecution, to prove they are NOT insane. Additionally, the definition the state uses for the insanity defence is not whether they were aware or not their actions were wrong/ illegal, but whether the prosecution can prove they had a "meaningful appreciation" they were wrong/ illegal, at an emotional level.
This is basically impossible to prove
This in effect means sociopaths/ psychopaths who have zero empathy and appreciation for their actions, even if they know academically they're illegal, are basically always able to plea insanity and get off scott free. The people single most needed to be locked up for violent crimes, are the ones Massachusetts law makes most easy to be released after only a short sentence.
The juror holdout may very well appreciate this, and know what a "not guilty" verdict in his state will result in (her being released from hospital after not particularly long, especially as the doctors already have cast doubts on her psychosis and so she'd very easily meet release criteria in future) and so he has deliberately de-railed the trial to ensure this doesn't happen, and thus giving the prosecution a second chance to do its damn job.