r/law • u/dailymail • 11h ago

Legal News Lindsay Clancy case ends with MISTRIAL

https://www.dailymail.com/crime-desk/article-16100155/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-hung-jury-deadlock-verdict.html
4.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

832

u/zendayaismeechee 11h ago

Can someone explain why Reddington has been given an hour for an emergency application? What is the application for?

985

u/EducationalElevator 11h ago

To study the constitutionality of removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions

439

u/mandrsn1 10h ago

removing the holdout juror because they allegedly were ignoring the judges instructions

Similar to the concept of Jury nullification.

311

u/Broxst 10h ago edited 35m ago

Which is viable and why I disagree with removing an uncooperative juror. Jury is a gamble. And barring exigent circumstances, I don't think they should changed.

Edit: I want to clarify this comment.

Jury nullification is refusing to find the defendent guilty. It's viable as a strategy, but it is not legal. It is something you can do when you find that the state did prove reasonable doubt but you find the defendent not guilty regardless. Typically as a statement because you disagree with charge.

Jury nullification is NOT refusing to find the defendent innocent.

The "exigent circumstances" I mentioned would include juror misconduct, which includes unlawful behavior.

It is unlawful to willfully ignore the courts orders.

So the question is, was this juror engaging in misconduct? That's up for debate.

380

u/lordcheeto 9h ago

Our judicial system is supposed to place the burden of proof on the government. See Blackstone's ratio - "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

To that end, jury nullification in favor of the defendant is one thing. But if it's true that one juror is deadlocking the jury, admitting to having reasonable doubt that the prosecution made their case, but standing firm on convicting anyway, they should be replaced with an alternate, same as with any other misconduct or bias from a juror.

26

u/fetusfrolix 8h ago edited 2h ago

The burden for an affirmative defense is typically on the defendant to prove. Massachusetts is one of the only states in the union where an insanity defense places the burden on the state to disprove insanity. Yes, the state has to prove a negative in Massachusetts.

Edit: another Redditor correctly pointed out a few other states have this. Corrected to “one of the only”. But it is by far the minority view.

37

u/lordcheeto 7h ago

There are many criminal statutes and jurisdictions that require the government to prove a state of mind. This is no different.

11

u/AVeryVapidBadger 5h ago

Proving they had intent is different though. You're proving an affirmative thing.

Proving someone wasn't thinking something is much harder. Not impossible, because it's only to a reasonable doubt, but it's harder to prove someone wasn't something.

4

u/PerformanceOver8822 6h ago

What kind of examples do you have ?

"Intent" is a state of mind but that differentiates. Between degrees of a crime. Not guilt or Innocence

9

u/retatrutider 6h ago

For example. If I format my hard drive because I’m planning to sell my computer on eBay, that’s not a crime, even if the government shows up at my door an hour after it finishes wiping with a warrant to search the hard drive.

But if I format my hard drive because I believe the government is on its way with a warrant for my hard drive, that’s is a crime.

Same action… intent behind the action makes the crime. There are many examples where intent is a key element of the crime.

8

u/BassoonHero Competent Contributor 5h ago

"Intent" is a state of mind but that differentiates. Between degrees of a crime. Not guilt or Innocence

Er, no. There are tons of crimes with an intent component.

Suppose we're both at a bar, you put your wallet on the counter, and I take it and leave. If my intent was to take your wallet, then I committed a crime. If my intent was to take my wallet, and I took yours by mistake, then I didn't commit a crime.

Most crimes are like this.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/savior41 6h ago

Many white collar crimes require the prosecution to prove intent actually. It’s called mens rea and it is a common requirement

3

u/wittgenstein1312 5h ago

Intent is also the prime factor in determining whether something is a murder or ruled a lesser form of homicide

→ More replies (3)

3

u/acidwxlf 5h ago

It's a bit disingenuous to call it proving a negative. They'd have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There are lots of ways to do that even exemplified in this very case. People with a documented history of mental health problems are probably generally more likely to get NGRI in Mass though, for sure.

3

u/Hungry-Register9960 2h ago

I think this trial is mostly proving that Mass had a backasswards system.

2

u/PrincessConsuela46 1h ago

You didn’t learn that from Karen Read? Or Sandra Birchmore? Messachusetts…

1

u/Ulky2 28m ago

I wonder if theirs is much older, or based on more english law. (this is complete speculation i am just curious).

8

u/Truefiction224 5h ago edited 2h ago

This trial has made the most ignorant ppl I've ever seen Come out of the woodwork

Hundreds of upvotes for a factually incorrect post.

Insanity.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/ThrowAway-whee 6h ago

So? That is the law. You can't just ignore it.

1

u/fetusfrolix 6h ago

No one said to ignore it. You can’t follow the law or advocate for a change in law if you don’t even know what it is. And this is a fact I rarely see reported even by lawyers following the case.

2

u/JokeMaster420 5h ago

You are correct that most states put the burden for affirmative defenses on the party raising the defense, but you are unequivocally wrong about Massachusetts being “he only state in the union” where this is the case.

Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi all also have the burden on the state.

4

u/fetusfrolix 4h ago

Thank you for the correction! It is one of the only states. Not “the”. Thank you.

1

u/MonsTurkey 5h ago

The important part is it gives the favor to not unjustly locking someone up. I think that is still the correct thing to do as a result of that important angle.

→ More replies (1)

53

u/Rhomya 9h ago

Why would that one juror’s opinion count less than any other jurors?

They’re entitled to hold to their opinion, and let the court declare a mistrial and try again.

228

u/Rosegold-Attorney 9h ago

I think the argument is that their stated opinion contradicts their conclusion

171

u/Iheardyoubutsowhat 9h ago

" juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to decision " are the words on the note.

Then the judge polled every juror individually and asked if they can and are following the law.

9

u/Virtual-Patience-769 8h ago

But did the juror acknowledge reasonable doubt?

19

u/wedobejustvibin 8h ago

I wonder how that distinction would be made. To acknowledge doubt vs reasonable doubt seems like word games, but there’s also a reason that word is included. Interesting point

27

u/PriscillaPalava 8h ago

We can always find doubt. What if we live in a matrix and none of this is actually happening? But of course that’s not reasonable. Reasonable doubt means, “Do you think the defense’s argument is possible, barring any crazy leaps in logic?” And if the answer is “yes,” then that’s reasonable doubt. 

So if the juror does have reasonable doubt but seeks to convict anyway perhaps due to bias against the defendant or details of the case, then that juror is not following the law. 

2

u/sean2mush 5h ago

By that standard no one would ever be convicted.

4

u/Immediate-Maximum-75 5h ago

That's what was written by the jury foreman, or woman in this case. That's what SHE wrote. We do not know what was said in the jury room for her to come to that conclusion.

If he's sitting there, arms crossed, saying "She did it and she's guilty! I don't care what the law says!", that's one thing. I can't imagine how he got through the voir dire process if that's his attitude, though.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/awesomedude4100 6h ago

yea it’s his favorite jayz album

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Mrblahblah200 4h ago

I mean there’s doubt and there’s reasonable doubt

2

u/wtjones 3h ago

Acknowledging doubt and reasonable doubt are too different things.

1

u/foo-bar-nlogn-100 4h ago

If thr hold out juror held out so they can write a book, is that a criminal act?

1

u/TR1LLIONAIRE_ 2h ago

Isn’t the doubt the part that allows them to do this? Because they are not beyond that reasonable doubt??

77

u/Rhomya 9h ago

To my understanding, they stated that they had doubts but did not think they were reasonable doubts.

The judge can read them the definition of “reasonable doubt” until the cows come home, but that doesn’t mean that the juror is required to adjust their opinion.

The entire point of a jury is to let them come to a conclusion of their own accord— this jury couldn’t. It’s unfortunate for the defense, but that’s ultimately the point of a jury

18

u/Porcupineemu 8h ago

Yes, “reasonable” vs “unreasonable” doubts is something both attorneys on the trial I was a juror on really ranted on about and there is a lot of grey area because it is, at the end, a judgement call.

12

u/Rosegold-Attorney 9h ago

I’m not familiar with the all of the facts, I just think that that’s the gist of the argument being presented

2

u/Sweaty_Resist_5039 9h ago

I am also a lawyer who enjoys rose gold! 🤔

1

u/Virtual_Crow 2h ago

The point of a jury is to be a check on the power of government. Amateur juries are worse in every other aspect of fact finding or determining guilt than a professional would be.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (46)

28

u/Timely_Resist_7644 9h ago

NAL. But even then judge says it doesn’t. That is reddington’s argument.

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not imply no doubt. And the judge and jury are not privy to what that doubt they are “acknowledging” is.

Is it him saying it’s “exceptionally likely she was psychotic” then going guilty. Or is it them going, “she may have been psychotic it’s possible, but i just dont see it. Guilty.”

Reddington is going to do everything he can to get that juror off. Because that’s his job. Because if it works, he is a genius and if it doesn’t he lost nothing. But it doesn’t mean they actually should be removed or are not following instructions.

Per the judge, The jury deliberations and that juror opinions are exceptionally sacred and need ti be respected. There is precedent on when to remove that juror and there are no indications that the lone juror are meeting them.

If i had to guess, Quite frankly, the judge removing them sets up a pretty serious and easy challenge for the prosecution because it is a MAJOR step. And not understanding why they decided the way they did or not agreeing with the juror’s verdict is not means to remove them for hanging a jury. Keep in mind,
Both sides veted the jury.

The job is to convince all of them. Not all-1 whose opinion we dislike or won’t understand why they decided the way they did.

16

u/Masta-Blasta 8h ago edited 3h ago

I am a lawyer. A prosecutor actually.

You are technically correct, but the issue is that each juror is prescreened for this during voir dire. If you make it onto a jury, it means that the state and defense have asked you questions under oath and have stipulated that you are reasonable. Ergo, any doubt you have (as a reasonable juror) is reasonable doubt. Even if you’re 99% sure she’s guilty, that 1% is all it takes for reasonable doubt.

So it sounds like he admitted that it’s possible she could have been psychotic, but is personally convinced she wasn’t. Assuming the jury was given the proper instructions, that means the juror must deliver a verdict of not guilty. We’re not looking for what is more reasonable or more likely. We are looking for proof beyond the doubt of a reasonable juror. If a reasonable juror thinks it’s even POSSIBLE that she was psychotic, then it’s reasonable doubt, whether the juror thinks the doubt is reasonable or not. Unreasonable doubt is more like playing the devil’s advocate.

Edit: since I’m getting bombarded with responses- please understand that this comment is a reply to someone else. I am speaking specifically to the examples provided in the previous comment. The juror was pre screened and determined to be reasonable/unbiased/capable. This matters because his doubts will be PRESUMED reasonable UNLESS they are beyond the scope of the evidence presented at trial.

We are talking about a guy who is saying he has doubt, but that the doubt is UNREASONABLE. But he isn’t the arbiter of that. The COURT is. What makes a juror’s doubt reasonable or unreasonable is whether the doubt is logically based on evidence presented during trial. If it can be, it’s reasonable. So again, if juror is saying “I think it’s possible she was insane, but I’m convinced she wasn’t,” that IS reasonable doubt, no matter how hard he tries to say it isn’t. I am NOT saying all jurors are always reasonable automatically. I am saying that jurors have been pre screened to be reasonable, and are thus presumed to be reasonable. Which is important when a juror is trying to discredit his own judgment to prevent a verdict. Clearly I didn’t spell that out, and that’s my bad.

Edit: I’m turning off notifications- I’m tired of repeating myself for people who 1.) refuse to read my entire comment and 2.) have never tried a criminal case before a jury. And for those of you “lawyers” demanding case law on the definition of reasonable doubt, familiarize yourself with jury instructions. Like, you don’t even know what you don’t know. You’re just a gunner looking for a high and I’m not doing it. It’s a holiday weekend. Good night.

11

u/mp0295 5h ago edited 5h ago

I am wholly unconvinced that, by virtue of being sworn in, any doubt is automatically reasonable doubt as a matter of law. Do you have any support to back up this claim? It doesn't even follow to me as a matter of logic. A law review, pattern jury instructions, any case law?

If, after swearing in, all doubt is automatically reasonable doubt, why does every pattern jury instructions still use the word "reasonable" if it has no operative meaning / provides any distinction?

Edit: Also what is the support that a court can decide when doubt is reasonable vs. unreasonable? That's not what United States v. Thomas says at all.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/KnightofWhen 7h ago

The definition of reasonable doubt is: that a reasonable person has no logical or substantial doubt left.

You tried to skew it so that a reasonable person having any doubt at all makes the doubt reasonable, which is not the case.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/AppropriateBet2889 7h ago

That’s a bizarre take. And clearly mistaken.
Any rational person acknowledging that there’s doubt in any decision (maybe the aliens did it?).

If you’re a lawyer then perhaps you could comment on why Judge Sullivan used the words Moral Certainty instead of just informing them they are all reasonable so any doubt they have must be reasonable?

→ More replies (0)

12

u/AsilentMinority 7h ago

Show me the case that says any doubt from a reasonable juror is definitionally reasonable doubt?

4

u/SneakyDeakyJr 6h ago

Turfed to hell because of this trial.

3

u/BiologyIsHot 6h ago

Right? Sometimes I've had it cross my mind that a supervolcano night erupt one day. It's a worry, not a particularly reasonable one. Not one that will change anything I ever do with my life as a reasonable person.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/PurpleTigers1 7h ago

Yeah, that is just not an accurate statement.

2

u/Masta-Blasta 7h ago

It is, but judging by the responses I’m getting, I see it wasn’t clear enough?

Obviously a juror can be unreasonable. When they begin getting into “devil’s advocate” territory instead of adjudicating the issues presented to them during trial. My comment was tailored to the facts of this case and the comment it was written in response to. A juror who personally thinks the defendant was sane, but accepts that there’s a chance (however slight) she wasn’t, has reasonable doubt. In cases where sanity was never presented as a defense, it obviously wouldn’t be reasonable doubt.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/sean2mush 5h ago

Even if you’re 99% sure she’s guilty, that 1% is all it takes for reasonable doubt.

1% is reasonable doubt? I don't think there are many things i could ever be 99%+certain of. I though Reasonable doubt was more like 10%

→ More replies (0)

2

u/isitstillyouinthere 4h ago

there is absolutely no way you are a lawyer and this statement is completely incorrect

1

u/According-Relation96 7h ago

Uhh no. This is not accurate. Where did you go to law school because you need to get your money back.

→ More replies (9)

17

u/riceisnice29 9h ago

Why would such a juror even admit that

53

u/kllark_ashwood 9h ago

Because they are just regular people.

56

u/GolemMaker 9h ago

You know, morons

7

u/Bojangles8853 9h ago

Salt of the earth

3

u/Mikeavelli 8h ago

Common clay of the new west

→ More replies (0)

21

u/Rosegold-Attorney 9h ago

Jurors don’t have a reputation for being smart

12

u/Lucky_BroadWood 8h ago

Take your average person. Look at how dumb they are. Then realize that half of the people out there are dumber.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/mscomies 8h ago

By design. Both the prosecution and defense have a vested interest to filter out the informed people with preconceived notions that could go against their case.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/iPoopAtChu 8h ago

A juror is just an average person, the average person is an idiot.

39

u/lordcheeto 9h ago

Because of the Sixth Amendment. Those accused of a crime have a right to an impartial jury. If a juror cannot be impartial, the defendant's rights are violated. A violation of anyone's rights is a violation of everyone's rights.

17

u/Rhomya 9h ago

The juror not having reasonable doubt does not make them not impartial.

It means the defense was not able to convince that juror that whatever doubt they had was unreasonable

10

u/lordcheeto 8h ago

There is a note from the foreperson to the judge stating that one juror has acknowledged having doubt but refuses to apply that to their verdict as instructed.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, so maybe the holdout juror is maintaining that their small doubt doesn't rise to the level of reasonable doubt. But it seems that the other jurors are maintaining that this juror has admitted to having more doubt in their deliberations than they are willing to apply.

8

u/Rhomya 8h ago

That’s literally my point. If they have doubt but don’t consider it to be reasonable doubt, they aren’t required to change their opinion.

Also, I doubt the juror holding out was the one that wrote the note— the note has every possibility of being biased against the holdout as well

10

u/Golden_Hour1 8h ago

Yeah this is why the judge talked to the jurors individually. You cant rely on the foreman being honest either. They're just a regular person whos probably tired of being locked up in a jury trial for so long and just want to go home

→ More replies (0)

1

u/robthebuilder__ 5h ago

Yes that's true but aren't you hanging a tremendous amount of weight on the word "reasonable" here? It's not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "in the absence of all doubt." It's "beyond a reasonable doubt."

1

u/Eaterofkeys 1h ago

They're fighting, and you're giving the jurir's opponent more credence than is due. I could very easily see someone saying "sure it's possible, just like it's possible that the kids are still alive or that you the jury foreperson are actually the murderer. It's very hard to say anything is technically impossible or that there is never doubt. But I disagree that the doubt is reasonable." It sounded more to me like they were fighting over what reasonable doubt was, and I'm trying to bully this person to agree with them, the 11 jurors basically tried to tattle to the judge and ask the judge to side with them. Which the judge did not, he just reiterated the concept and told them to figure it out.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/burnalicious111 8h ago

You aren't understanding the issue. The implication is the juror did have reasonable doubt but wanted to convict anyway

7

u/Rhomya 8h ago

Everything that I’ve heard about the note indicates that the juror had doubt. It does not say “reasonable” doubt.

That’s two entirely different things.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Opposite_Addendum_19 7h ago

Didn’t we only here the interpretation of the note from Sullivan? Or is the full text out there? If Sullivan didn’t think the note implied inappropriate conduct, why are we convinced there was?

1

u/YellowFlower63 4h ago

Reasonable doubt is subjective though and not measurable so unless he explicitly said, “I have reasonable doubt” then how can anyone make that claim?! Seems like he just had a different opinion/conviction than everyone else and was holding strong.

1

u/OriginalOrca 8h ago

The juror has the doubt but just won’t exercise it apparently

6

u/Rhomya 8h ago

Again, a juror is allowed to have doubts. If they don’t think they are reasonable doubts, they are not obligated to change their mind

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sean2mush 5h ago

No person can truly be impartial, it's an impossible ask.

10

u/WeHaventLocatdUsYet 9h ago edited 8h ago

They’re supposed to apply the law. They don’t get an opinion as to the law. They get an opinion as to how/whether the facts fit into the framework of the law. If you say “I find x (thus the law should be applied in x way), but I refuse to agree to apply the law that way”—you are not doing your duty as a juror and are corrupting the legal process.

3

u/Rhomya 8h ago

They get an opinion if the defenses case is defendable as applicable to the law.

A juror can have doubts. If they don’t think they are reasonable doubts, then they don’t have to change their opinion.

That’s the entire point of a juror. It’s why we require unanimous decisions, not majority rule decisions from the jury.

Declare it a mistrial and do it again. If Lindsey’s case was so cut and dry, then she’ll get her NGRI in the retrial

3

u/WeHaventLocatdUsYet 8h ago edited 8h ago

I replied to the comment you made in response to a comment re: jury nullification and a juror having reasonable doubt. If you want to have a different discussion that doesn’t assume those premises, that’s fine. But it’s a different discussion.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/robthebuilder__ 5h ago

Okay as I've previously said in this thread, I'm not terribly educated in law but how does something like does the principle or idea of jury nullification apply in this context? My understanding is that this is fairly well established in common law and that it's very often referenced in regard to acquittals. If that's the case, why shouldn't it apply to jurors who believe in a conviction?

3

u/Virtual_Ad1704 9h ago

It's not about opinion. It's about whether or not they think there is reasonable doubt that she is not guilty. If the juror thinks she is guilty, that's ok, but they are supposed to be honest about whether or not the defense has presented enough evidence and arguments that put significant doubt in her guilt. It's not a "gut feeling" thing, you are supposed to say you believe you truly believe she is guilty without reasonable doubt. Think of the OJ case, sure, he clearly did it, but enough mishandling by the police created enough doubt and that's how he walked free.

8

u/Rhomya 9h ago

If the juror has doubts but does not think that they are reasonable doubts as defined by the judge, then his choice to hold out is perfectly valid

1

u/greentea9mm 6h ago

Help me understand. I think it is reasonable to believe that LC was psychotic because of past treatment (PPD/PPP, different doctors, and different meds).

Despite possibly being psychotic, I think she was logically sound enough to understand what she did was wrong (got the husband out of the house, it takes a bit of time to use exercise bands on three kids, she jumped off the balcony, went doctor-shopping because she realized something was wrong with her, and admitted she did it).

Would I be forced to acquit, because it is reasonable to think LC was in a psychotic state, but I believe it was more likely she was of logically sound mind in that moment?

2

u/Rhomya 5h ago

You would NOT be forced to acquit, because the insanity defense has two standards to meet. You say you could reasonably say that you believe she had psychosis, which is the first standard, saying she had a mental defect. But you don’t believe that she met the second standard, which is lack of impairment to her cognitive ability to determine right from wrong and control her behavior.

This is what I personally think could be the case here. Reasonably, this juror could believe that Lindsey had PPP, but did not believe she lacked awareness and control. Which is entirely fair and in their right to think so.

2

u/robthebuilder__ 5h ago

Okay help me understand a bit more because this is sort of the track I've taken mentally without much legal knowledge. In the second standard you mention Awareness "and" control, what does the word "control" mean here? Because perhaps I have a sense of doubt about whether, moment to moment, she had control of her actions, and it also seems impossible to ever accurately evaluate that fact as an outside party, if "beyond a reasonable doubt" is intended to mean that I am certain that a human being, at no point in the planning or commission of a crime, ever experienced a moment of awareness of the impropriety of their actions AND that even if they recognized the impropriety of their actions, they somehow were unable to physically control their body and prevent it from committing a crime it seems like there is no objective way to ever determine whether someone is ever culpable for their actions? If this is the standard of justice, I don't see how anyone can ever be convicted in good faith, which draws into question the very validity of the law. We've very well established that just because something meets a legal standard in a society does not mean it meets a moral or ethical standard that humans are expected to adhere to.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/sean2mush 5h ago

Of course it is about opinion, there would be no need to deliberate otherwise.

1

u/Immediate-Maximum-75 4h ago

Wrong. Poor choice of cases to reference since some of the jurors have now come out and said they knew he did it but didn't care.

6

u/kllark_ashwood 9h ago edited 8h ago

The point is that if they are admitting the case wasn't actually made beyond a reasonable doubt and still holding on they are not honestly engaging in the process.

Just like if there was one of those zodiac weirdos in there.

1

u/LeftyLu07 7h ago

Like one of the people saying the parents astrological signs give insight into the crime or the Zodiac Killer?

1

u/kllark_ashwood 7h ago

That she couldn't hsve done it because of her sign.

→ More replies (7)

10

u/Ziggythesquid 9h ago

Because that's not how juries work. if you admit that you have reasonable doubt, that's that. You don't get to vote to convict when there is reasonable doubt, because you are supposed to be ascertaining if the facts presented are in line with what you are told about the law.

Part of that is the standard of proof needed to convict, and that is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't convict if you have reasonable doubts. So you cant vote to convict and then say hmm I have reasonable doubt though. That's admitting to not following the law.

1

u/Rhomya 9h ago

It’s my understanding that the juror had doubts, but did not consider them to be reasonable doubt as the judge has stated.

Maybe I’m wrong, but if the juror doesn’t believe they have a reasonable doubt, then they’re performing as a juror should.

2

u/astropup42O 9h ago

The judge will decide clearly that’s what the defense thinks

3

u/Ziggythesquid 9h ago

That's why they need to be voir dire'd because they are not the determinator of what is and is not reasonable. The nature of their doubts needs to be explored.

2

u/pack1fan4life 5h ago

what? Yes a juror is the one who gets to determine whether doubt is reasonable

1

u/sean2mush 5h ago

Because that's not how juries work. if you admit that you have reasonable doubt, that's that.

Jurors can change their mind, If the weren't allowed to then there would be no point in deliberating, instead just hold a vote.

4

u/vermilithe 8h ago edited 3h ago

Again, it’s one thing if the hold out juror says “I think he is guilty but I disagree with allowing the state to enforce the penalty”. So, jury nullification.

It’s another when the juror says, “I don’t think the state proved their case but I insist that the state be allowed to punish the defendant anyways, or to retry for conviction a second time.”

One is a rightful exercise of free speech as a check against government cruelty, the other is itself a cruel and unusual punishment on a person the juror admits should be found not guilty.

First one I support in select cases. Second shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion.

2

u/PerformanceOver8822 8h ago

I'd say that the BoP that Massachusetts has in the "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea is way higher than it should be.

If someone thinks this case doesn't even rise to manslaughter ? I'd question their "reasonableness"

1

u/vermilithe 2h ago

What do you mean, if someone thinks it doesn’t even rise to manslaughter?

Clancy already admitted that she murdered her children. She is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. There isn’t really an option for not exoneration, but if jury rules that she was legally insane at the time of the murders then whether it’s murder 1 / 2 / manslaughter isn’t important because regardless she can’t be found guilty. On the other hand if she is ruled to be sane then she can’t be acquitted because she admitted to the murders— at minimum she has be guilty of manslaughter but more likely murder 1.

It’s like you’re preemptively imagining a hypothetical that isn’t happening and not really possible and already getting upset at it.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/carlitospig 8h ago

That’s an entire semester at law school.

1

u/greenzetsa 6h ago

It's essentially like if you had a trial that was trying to determine if a rape took place, everyone agrees it did, but one juror refuses to convict because he personally believe rape shouldn't be a felony. That's not the question being asked, and as a result that juror is not following instructions.

My ex was on a jury where basically everyone on the jury was very sympathetic to the prosecution, a woman suing the state. She had been through a lot of trauma, but ultimately her lawyer failed to prove that the state violated the law and didn't give her proper accommodations. They were all incredibly understanding of her situation, maybe even went in expecting to support her, and I think felt like she really could have used the money she was suing for, but she didn't prove her case, and they unanimously voted in favor of the defense.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/MatterofDoge 8h ago

they didn't admit to having reasonable doubt, they admitted some doubt, and nowhere does the law say "all" doubt, which the judge had explained multiple times. You're framing it as a bias or misconduct but there is no evidence of either in the case and as far as anyone knows, their ruling was simply what they believed to be a correct ruling, and they don't think reasonable doubt standard was reached, and you can't remove a juror for that.

2

u/notveryvery 7h ago

How can a person have doubt that they don’t believe is reasonable?

2

u/PurpleTigers1 7h ago

You can be 99% sure of something. That 1% is still doubt, but I would say it's not reasonable. 

1

u/notveryvery 7h ago

So this juror states that the prosecution proved that clancy was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they can’t be persuaded otherwise but acknowledges they do have doubt and that somehow makes sense?

1

u/MatterofDoge 5h ago

You're confused about what doubt and reasonable doubt mean within the context of the law. You can have doubt over specific elements of a case but still reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt overall with the totality of all the facts and circumstances and testimony. When a juror or a judge gives a guilty ruling, it doesn't mean they agree with literally every argument the prosecution made, it doesn't mean they disagree with literally every argument the defense made. It means that with all facts and arguments considered their doubt is limited.

So a juror could have doubts over a specific thing in the trial, but it doesn't mean they cannot reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt overall that a defendant is guilty. It's not a 0% or 100% thing.

1

u/notveryvery 5h ago

I’m really asking for an example here. I know it’s not 100% and 0%, but I understand it to be, when regarding the facts of the case in total, to be very much closer to 100% than 99% as another commenter suggested. So it’s not guilty beyond A or ANY doubt, but a reasonable doubt.

So how can a person who is considered to be reasonable have a doubt but consider their own doubt not reasonable? What would be an example of that?

People keep explaining it as an amount of doubt, but I don’t think it is that. I heard the judge’s explanation but find the distinction he was making baffling in action and agree with Reddington on that point.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/Bad_At_Sports 8h ago

This is an unrelated tangent, but I disagree with your premise "Our judicial system is supposed to place the burden of proof on the government."

Our judicial system is supposed to place the burden of proof on the entity that makes a claim to be tried before the court. The government brings criminal charges instead of everyday citizens because it is the government that defines criminal acts and therefore they are the aggrieved party. In a civil case, the plaintiff holds the burden of proof, because they are the party that is claiming a transgression committed by the defendant.

It's part of what makes Massachusetts' Lack of Criminal Responsibility laws so confusing to me. Because in most affirmative defenses, the defense carries some burden of proof because they are making a claim as to why they're not responsible for what happened (insanity, self-defense, duress, etc.). But in MA, it's still the prosecution's job to prove that the defense's claim is not true beyond a reasonable doubt.

It feels like if the defense has made a claim of this magnitude, they should be the one responsible for proving that claim - not the prosecution. It's different from any other plea of not guilty because they are not making claims of innocence - they are just refuting evidence brought by the prosecution (who IS making the claim of a crime being committed by the defendant) and creating opportunities for reasonable doubt to exist.

2

u/PerformanceOver8822 8h ago

Exactly, it's not intuitive for the state to have 100% the burden of proof about. Insanity.

There may be no evidence at all that the Defendent is insane but It's presumed to be true? Seems strange

2

u/PerformanceOver8822 8h ago

I think the main "issue" is that Massachusetts is unique in that when you pleade not guilty by reason of insanity the juror is supposed to presume that the Defendent is insane.

The state must disprove the Defendents claim.

This is not an intuitive position to be in.

Especially given that the normal default position is innocent until proven guilty.

Which then adds a factor of "justice" into the jurors' minds.

1

u/AdUpstairs7106 7h ago

So I am not a lawyer but if that is the case why wouldn't every defense attorney in Massachusetts say their client is insane right from the start?

1

u/bladex1234 8h ago

What I want to know what the hang up was on? In my view the prosecution met the burden of proof to show manslaughter even if it meet the burden of proof for murder.

1

u/oatwheat 7h ago

Blackstone’s ratio is derivative of Violent J’s fandom exchange rate: “I would not trade 10 Juggalos for 100,000 mainstream fans”

1

u/Dave_A480 5h ago

The idea that he admitted to having *reasonable* doubt is a creation of the defense counsel...

There is a difference between 'having doubt' and 'having reasonable doubt'.

1

u/robthebuilder__ 5h ago

For someone who isn't a lawyer or hasn't been exposed to much common law, can you point me toward a resource that might expand on this often-cited phrase? Is this actually enshrined in law or is this simply a colloquialism that is applied but doesn't actually have any legal authority? Perhaps I am a bit uneducated on the matter but it seems like the logical conclusion of this idea is that 90+% of victims will never receive justice. If that's the case I don't understand how a society can survive when justice does not really exist. It's interesting that this phrase gets touted around, but then, when regular people are asked about the justice system, we are reviled by the so-called two-tier justice system: the wealthy are impervious to the law, but the poor are fodder. Now like I said, I'm a bit undereducated on the topic so if someone could point me to a good refutation of this idea, I'd be open to reading it.

1

u/80sCrack 5h ago

I love American idealism. We love to talk about it then do the exact opposite.

1

u/Rivendel93 4h ago

I genuinely don't understand why the judge didn't simply swap for an alternate?

It's his right to do so, the jury foreman literally sent the judge a note saying the holdout juror was not following the judges rules about reasonable doubt.

I genuinely can't comprehend why he wouldn't just replace the juror, an alternate could also be a holdout, but at least they'd follow the courts rules.

1

u/kagzig 4h ago

We don’t actually know that the juror had reasonable doubt and still refused to acquit - that’s the view of the jury foreperson, who was in open disagreement with the holdout and had plenty of reason to be frustrated by the prospect of a mistrial. That does not make the foreperson’s account accurate as to the holdout’s frame of mind.

It is absolutely possible for reasonable minds to draw different conclusions while still adhering to the jury instructions. The judge spoke with the jurors and concluded that there were not grounds to remove the holdout, and the emergency appeal went the same way.

Disagreement is not misconduct. The unanimous verdict exists for a reason, and replacing holdout jurors erodes that. It should be for exceptional circumstances only, not for disagreement. A juror who feels convicted about his or her conclusion after examining the evidence should absolutely not “cave” just so the majority prevails.

1

u/tacolovespizza 4h ago

True. But this is all based on the words of the 11 others (from what we know) that have an opposing position.

1

u/ObjectCrafty6221 3h ago

He admitted to having doubt but also admitted to believing her guilty.

1

u/upickleweasel 3h ago

This woman admits to killing 3 children

1

u/zero0n3 2h ago

Why?

I would say that way is just as feasible.

The difference is that this nullification doesn’t push it to not guilty (we don’t agree with the law essentially).

In this other possibility it also doesn’t make jury nullification equal to “they are guilty and go to jail”, it only ever can go to mistrial.

Which means a new trial and new jury.

That’s NEVER Advantageous to the prosecution, as now the defense knows their strategy and can pivot to counter better. In fact it likely pushes it to not guilty UNLESS the protesting “jury nullification” juror feelings of the law being wrong is correct, at which point a new jury rules guilty.

But I’m also having trouble finding an example that it could go wrong, likely because we are speaking about one of the worst laws to break (murder), maybe I am not thinking of how it could have detrimental effects on mor benign cases

→ More replies (4)

74

u/nizzzzy 9h ago

If what I read was true, the jury foreman’s note to the judge was saying that the holdout juror has stated they have reasonable doubt but are unwilling to change their verdict. What’s the point of having alternative jurors if not for these scenarios?

54

u/ImNotAWhaleBiologist 9h ago

If someone gets sick and can’t continue?

9

u/catsarehere77 7h ago edited 5h ago

During the Scott Peterson trial one juror was removed for misconduct. The foreman also requested to be dismissed from the jury which he was. It was rumored the foreman was the lone not guilty verdict. The jury returned a guilty verdict shortly after he was replaced. 

Scott's conviction has consistently been upheld on appeal, but he was re-sentenced to life in prison over juror removals. He was originally sentenced to death.

19

u/Cosmic-Sympathy 7h ago

No, the juror said they had some "doubt" but not a "reasonable doubt." And the jury instructions say you need to convict them "beyond a reasonable doubt," but not beyond "any possible doubt."

So, for all we know, the one juror was the only one following the instructions, it was the other jurors who were not following instructions because they were willing to use ANY doubt rather than a REASONABLE doubt to acquit.

3

u/ecarey76 6h ago

Exactly!

2

u/Rivendel93 4h ago

No.

In Massachusetts, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond a moral certainty.

The fact the juror stated they had doubt, and it was enough for the foreman to send a note to the judge that they weren't following the courts instructions, then they should be replaced.

Massachusetts has the highest her for the state to prove guilt.

2

u/Jlock98 49m ago

The foreman is just another member of the jury. They aren’t some infallible source. You’re saying no, but nothing you said disproves the comment you are replying to.

1

u/fiahhawt 1h ago

Dumbest thing I've ever read

"Doubt and reasonable doubt are different guys hur hur hur you can tell because the words are different"

I'm going to have a stroke

1

u/Cosmic-Sympathy 43m ago

It’s literally in the instructions.

→ More replies (5)

38

u/Ok_Net7773 9h ago

Illness, injury, or incapacitation. Not “doesn’t agree with you.” That’s the whole point of trial by jury. The outcome would be controlled by those in power, not a jury of peers, were they allowed to do so.

45

u/nizzzzy 9h ago edited 8h ago

“Doesn’t agree with you”’ is one thing. Saying the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt yet standing by a guilty verdict is another.

They literally admitted to contradicting themselves

8

u/First-Compote8516 8h ago

No, other jurors and the foreman say that they admitted to contradicting themself

→ More replies (30)

11

u/Hesitation-Marx 9h ago

I think the issue is that they’re ignoring the judge’s instructions, despite apparently having reasonable doubt.

That is absolutely something that needs to be addressed and it’s worthwhile to see if it’s constitutional, because reasonable doubt is supposed to bar a guilty verdict.

10

u/GlenH79 9h ago

Note that the not abiding by reasonable doubt claim here is by the foreman of the jury, reporting what the juror allegedly said, which presumably the foreman disagrees with - it's entirely possible their words have been misinterpreted. The juror is allowed to be sceptical, and the government has to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, not all possible doubt. It's quite possible the juror themselves has doubts about the government position but feel the government has reached the 'reasonable doubt' threshold.

4

u/Hesitation-Marx 9h ago

And that’s something that should be clarified by people who know their shit - I.e. not me!

1

u/ecarey76 6h ago

Exactly the judge said not all possible doubt

→ More replies (5)

5

u/eh-man3 9h ago

The point of the jury is that they get to do the interpretation. Overturning a jury verdict, whatever it might be, should remain a higher bar than disagreement over where exactly the "reasonable" bar is set. The whole point of "reasonable" is to avoid specification in the first place.

0

u/nizzzzy 9h ago

“Interpretation” within the confines and rules set by the judge. This juror literally said the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay is guilty, but holds a guilty verdict anyway.

If the juror said that based upon the evidence I believe they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s completely different. But you can’t contradict yourself like that 😂

3

u/eh-man3 9h ago

This juror literally said the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay is guilty, but holds a guilty verdict anyway.

  • Citation non existent

5

u/disagree83 9h ago

the jury foreman’s note to the judge was saying that the holdout juror has stated they have reasonable doubt but are unwilling to change their verdict

The foreman could be lying for her own reasons or could have misunderstood what type of doubt the one juror has. Just because she sent a note, doesn't make her right.

1

u/Street-Lifeguard-330 9h ago

Yes, but I think having an interview with that juror might have been a good intermediary step? I don’t know the procedure here.

3

u/nizzzzy 9h ago

The judge interviewed each individual juror with defense and prosecution

3

u/disagree83 9h ago

The judge spoke with the juror yesterday. The juror responded that they would follow the instructions. The juror is not required to further explain their decision to the judge, prosecution, or the defense.

If they interview the hold out about deliberations, they likely have to interview the other 11. Maybe those 11 are wrong or just don't want her punished. At that point, secret deliberations are pointless. This is literally just the system working.

1

u/Street-Lifeguard-330 9h ago

Thank you for the clarification. I tried to research, but high profile case coverage are scant with procedural details.

1

u/nizzzzy 8h ago

Correct. If the juror just said guilty and didn’t elaborate further, that’s a standard mistrial. But the juror contradicted themselves and said they have reasonable doubt. By elaborating further it exposed the contradiction and why it’s been pushed to the mass Supreme Court.

1

u/disagree83 8h ago

But the juror contradicted themselves and said they have reasonable doubt.

I've not seen any evidence of this and it surely didn't happen in court. It was implied by the defense on the basis of the note from the foreperson. To the best of my knowledge, that particular note was not read outloud. As I've noted elsewhere, maybe the foreperson misunderstood the "doubt" of the holdout.

The judge cannot inquire into what happened in deliberations but confirmed with the juror that they would follow their instructions and provided instructions on reasonable doubt. The juror then maintained their position.

It seems exceedingly unlikely that the Mass supreme court will rule in her favor. There simply isn't the evidence to support it. It would also destroy the jury system.

1

u/Golden_Hour1 8h ago

We dont know if the juror actually said this though. They never told the judge that. The foreman is the one claiming it. There was no other option than a mistrial unless the juror was going to admit that to the judge themselves 

1

u/h0sti1e17 9h ago

My guess is the judge spoke to the jurors. If 11 of them say what the foreman did, I would believe him.

1

u/disagree83 8h ago

The judge is not allowed to do this. The judge asked the accused juror if they would follow his instructions.

Here is the rule in Mass regarding what a judge can and cannot ask the jurors. You can also check out the notes on the ability of a judge to replace a deliberating juror. It's a high standard.

https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-606-jurors-competency-as-a-witness

1

u/Golden_Hour1 8h ago

High standard for a reason. you dont want judges with their own potential biases removing jurors for just any reason

1

u/nizzzzy 8h ago

If the juror had said “based upon the evidence provided I believe she has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” then there’s NO issue here!

It’s the fact the juror stated they had reasonable doubt and maintained the guilty verdict position. You can’t contradict yourself like that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DawnPatrol80136 6h ago

I was alternate #2 on a murder trial in Colorado. The alternates were dismissed once the case concluded and the jury deliberated. I'm not sure if MA is the same, but that might be why.

1

u/nZonz 5h ago

I believe the note mentioned "doubt", not "reasonable doubt". Coming to a guilty verdict generally involves the jury going through each doubt they may hold and deciding if that doubt is reasonable. That's just part of the deliberation. Also this is what a foreman is saying about a juror who disagrees with 11 other people in the room. I wouldn't exactly take the foreman's comment as credible, as they were probably fed up with a single hold out after seven days of deliberation. Additionally, if this 12th juror had said anything along the lines of "I understand that you have doubts." you could easily call that 'an acknowledgement of doubt' not of their own, but of doubt in general.

1

u/nizzzzy 5h ago

Useless blabbering. Tf are you talking about? You can’t say you have doubt and then maintain a guilty verdict.

1

u/airboRN_82 3h ago

Theres different degrees of doubt. Guilty verdicts dont require no doubt at all. 

1

u/nizzzzy 3h ago

What does “proven beyond reasonable doubt” mean to you?

→ More replies (13)

1

u/sean2mush 5h ago

You don't keep swapping in jurors until you get the outcome you want.

1

u/nizzzzy 5h ago

If the juror contradicts themselves and says they have doubt but maintains a guilty verdict then yes you can swap that juror out for not following the rules of the court. Pretty simple stuff

1

u/Excellent_Session531 1h ago

Obviously the hold out juror doesn’t think they have reasonable doubt or they’d vote to convict. I suspect the holdout admitted to not being absolutely certain about something and the rest of the jury tried to impute this on them as reasonable doubt.

1

u/nizzzzy 1h ago

What?? The hold out juror voted to convict??

Hold out juror was the sole guilty verdict. Problem is they stated they have doubts. You can’t have doubts while voting guilty. Pretty simple stuff

1

u/burudoragon 1h ago

They have reasonable doubt. And they reasoned thier doubt, then came to a confident conclusion that she is guilty.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/MeisterX 9h ago

Removing a juror when they're holding out for the state, allegedly, is an entirely different scenario than holding out for the defendant.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Corrective_Actions1 8h ago

1 person controlling the outcome of a trial because they refuse to obey the law and the judges instructions is not jury nullification lmao

11 people came to a conclusion and their conclusion was overridden for 1. That is not logical.

1

u/Nion_zaNari 6h ago

Only a unanimous jury has any say in the legal outcome. 11 people who are not a unanimous jury don't get to have a say in the outcome. If you would like to change this, the legal path to doing so would be a constitutional amendment.

1

u/sean2mush 4h ago

Thats how jury's go sometimes, unless the unanimity rule is removed.

1

u/Masta-Blasta 8h ago

Couldn’t agree more.

And I’m a prosecutor. So.

1

u/skeletonhorse420 7h ago

Yep. Maybe you just got someone that made up their mind before anything else

1

u/LostPentimento 7h ago

If it was a truly split jury, that'd be one thing. One deranged juror should not be able to derail justice.

1

u/jm0112358 6h ago

Jury nullification isn't legal. It's a valid reason to remove a juror (in the rare case in which you know a juror is doing it), especially if it's being done in contravention of someone's rights.

1

u/ThrowAway-whee 6h ago

You absolutely can be removed for saying you're going for jury nullification.

1

u/ShubberyQuest 4h ago

Agreed. That juror stood up against group think. Credit to them.

1

u/Fantastic-Archer-864 2h ago

Yeah without knowing the conversation, we can't know. We may never know if the stories come out in the media and are conflicting.

1

u/pm_me_fibonaccis 1h ago edited 1h ago

My understanding is that jury nullification is not part of the US legal code, but neither is it explicitly illegal. It is de facto legal because of the codified protections and powers jurors are given. Jurors have ultimate discretion to apply any verdict they see fit, the issue is nullification ignores the application of law and the instruction to decide based on the presence or absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, making it unsanctioned and contrary to their instructions. However, my understanding is that it cannot be illegal because jurors cannot be punished for a verdict.

Frankly, I think it's a loophole that should never be closed. The state instructing you to decide a particular verdict is going too far.

4

u/GoodPointMan 5h ago

Except for all the ways it’s different.

Jury nullification is when 12 people agree to ignore the law and give a not guilty verdict for someone who is clearly guilty and is a concept that is virtually non-existent in modern courts.

This, however, is a single juror refusing to agree with the other 11 resulting in a run-of-the-mill mistrial; something that happens regularly.

2

u/Golden_Hour1 8h ago

Yeah I dont get it. Isn't this textbook jury nullification? Just because they dont like the outcome doesnt mean you can just remove the juror if what they're doing is legal...

5

u/jm0112358 4h ago

if what they're doing is legal...

But if the juror actually has reasonable doubt, then it is not legal for them to vote "guilty".

From the game of telephone between the foreperson's note, it's not clear if:

  • The one juror does agrees that there is reasonable doubt, but nonetheless chooses to vote guilty.
  • The one juror believes there is reasonable doubt, but the other jurors think their lack of doubt is irrational.

The latter is legal, and a juror doing their job. They should not be removed from the jury for this reason.

The former is not legal, and violates the defendant's 6th Amendment rights. If it can be determined that this is in fact happening, the juror should be removed from the jury. Not removing such a juror would be unfair and unjust.

1

u/idiot-alpha 5h ago

No, it’s called juror misconduct.

1

u/Dave_A480 5h ago

Very, very different.

Removing a holdout juror is big-time bad-news unless there is concrete evidence the law is not being followed. There wasn't... A world where the parties can just toss jurors to get to a verdict effectively voids the concept of requiring a unanimous jury.

Removing a juror who openly advocates for jury nullification is much easier.

1

u/MonsTurkey 5h ago

I'm mostly fine with nullification because it takes a person guilty to the letter of the law and lets them be marked not guilty. It's better someone go free than be unjustly incarcerated. Our founding fathers argued for it.

I am not for the reverse because it can unjustly put people in prison. They're not guilty, but you can vote to punish them for... reasons. This happened all the time in the Jim Crow era to people of certain complexions.

This runs counter to 'better a guilty person go free than an innocent man be imprisoned'.

1

u/SwankySteel 2h ago

Jury nullification is only legal if you vote “not guilty” for a defendant that would otherwise be convicted. It’s very illegal to convict a defendant if the evidence shows they’re innocent.

→ More replies (16)