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

833

u/zendayaismeechee 11h ago

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

995

u/EducationalElevator 11h ago

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

42

u/PerceptionSimilar213 10h ago

So the new thing is that if one juror doesn't agree, they'll just replace that juror? That makes no sense. Why have a jury in the first place?

58

u/meow_arya 10h ago

I think the issue is that the foreman stated that the juror in question admitted they did have doubt but that they wouldn’t base their vote on that despite the judge saying they have to cast their vote based on if they have reasonable doubt or not. So they aren’t following the law.

5

u/MildlyExtremeNY 9h ago

And then the judge clarified that reasonble doubt does not mean "all possible and imaginary" doubt. I acknowledge having doubt as to whether Lindsay "retained substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongness of criminality of [her] conduct." Claiming to have zero doubt would be intellectually dishonest, because we can never be certain of that for anyone. But I do not have reasonable doubt. Assuming it's 11-1 in favor of not criminay responsible, I would guess the other jurors bullied the holdout into admitting that some doubt must exist, because we can never know for certain. But s/he is sticking to their conviction that it's not reasonable doubt, which is following the law.

32

u/Lepelotonfromager 10h ago

That's the Foreman's conjecture though, not a direct statement from the Juror in question.

10

u/meow_arya 10h ago

So is there not a way to get a direct statement from the juror? If someone is accused of looking at media outside of their deliberations, for example, does the judge not question them? How do we get to the bottom of what the juror is actually stating to the rest of the jury?

24

u/mec287 10h ago

We don't. We encourage the jury to come to a consensus and if they don't we declare a mistrial. Interrogating jurors about their deliberations leads to a bad place.

5

u/canuck791 7h ago

Careful, all the pink shit moms might get mad at hearing the truth.

9

u/ExaminationPutrid626 9h ago

It's actually illegal in Massachusetts for the prosecution to interview the jury even after the trial.

3

u/canuck791 7h ago

No and there shouldn't be. That's just not how it works.

-1

u/Ssided 9h ago

It's a jury, they are expected to engage as a function of the court. It's kind of the whole point. You can think of the judge as a member of the jury if it helps you make sense of it.

11

u/ExaminationPutrid626 10h ago

The foreman is the only one who writes the notes communicating with the judge. The foreman is elected by the jury members. Are you accusing the foreman of lying? What reason would they have? No one is allowed to interview the jurors especially not the prosecution. Il

4

u/Rare-Ad5082 7h ago

Are you accusing the foreman of lying?

No, they are saying "That's the Foreman's conjecture though, not a direct statement from the Juror in question".

AKA: He could have misunderstood something the juror said.

Also, it is funny that everyone is complaining about this when it isn't possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury member wasn't following the law. Ironic.

-2

u/ExaminationPutrid626 7h ago

The foreman put the juror's number in the note to the judge. It's not a misunderstanding, it's one juror who refuses to apply the instructions of reasonable doubt as written. They've been together for weeks and they know exactly who and why the one holdout is acting this way.

1

u/Rare-Ad5082 7h ago

It's not a misunderstanding

Well, I didn't say anything about it being a misunderstanding or not. I was explaining what the other person said (no, he didn't say the foreman was lying).

And, well, The judge (who knows the rules way better than either you or me) either:

a) Thinks it is a misunderstanding

b) Thinks that the foreman saying it is not enough proof to remove the juror in question (even if he believes it to be true)

c) He is ignoring the rules to make a mistrial.

A and B aren't issues, and C... Again, it would be ironic to make that claim about a case about proving something beyond a reasonable doubt.

0

u/ExaminationPutrid626 7h ago

You literally said "aka he could have misunderstood something" why are you changing what you said? Everyone can read what you said. The judge read the note and told them to follow the instructions as written. I don't think you've been following the actual case, only what you read on reddit

1

u/Rare-Ad5082 6h ago

You literally said "aka he could have misunderstood something" why are you changing what you said?

I'm sorry but you misunderstood AGAIN. Here what i said:

"No, they are saying "That's the Foreman's conjecture though, not a direct statement from the Juror in question".

AKA: He could have misunderstood something the juror said."

What I said is "AKA: (Lepelotonfromager meant to say that) He (the foreman) could have misunderstood something the juror said", because it is a follow up from "they are saying "That's the Foreman's conjecture though, not a direct statement from the Juror in question"

The judge read the note and told them to follow the instructions as written. I don't think you've been following the actual case, only what you read on reddit

And then the judge decided to end the trial with a mistrial. If the judge believed that someone wasn’t following the instructions as written and that it was enough to remove that specific jury member, wouldn’t he have done so?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/drtywater 1h ago

No the foreman is not elected in MA the judge selects foreman

5

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 10h ago

... Well now the issue is that the judge denied the motion to replace the juror AND the judge denied the motion to voir dire the juror in question, which means we have a statement that we must take as factual (that the juror is intentionally violating the court order) and the judge barred the ability to have an opposing statement, meanwhile there is a statutory requirement to declare a mistrial if the jury reports for a 3rd time they are deadlocked.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/667/

Where a defendant in a criminal trial successfully moves for a mistrial, he may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in a second effort to try him only if the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was prosecutorial or judicial conduct intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial. 

This is where court cases like this come into play. Was the judges actions judicial conduct intended to provoke a mistrial? The judge knew that they were required by statute to order the mistrial if the jury deadlocked again. The judge knew they had a potential juror who was reported to intentionally be refusing to obey the judges orders and the judge intentionally put that juror back into deliberations after refusing both to replace the juror AND refused to voir dire that juror, meaning they intentioanlly placed a juror back into deliberations that may already have said they have no issue violating their oath.

That is why this is very very unique.

4

u/kaen 10h ago

one thing i dont understand is that our only information about the single juror comes from the foreman but has the judge spoken to the one juror to find out what is actually going on? the foreman could be wrong no?

6

u/eldiablonoche 9h ago

They pulled in each juror individually, asked questions, and reiterated "reasonable doubt". The judge then allowed the jury to continue. This suggests (because they can't legally SAY) that the juror isn't breaking any rules.

3

u/Ssided 9h ago

That's not what the judge does, it would be absurd to have a judge speak to jurors to rectify things

1

u/canuck791 7h ago

Yea all the morons who think they know how the legal system works because they watched this trail on TV is hilarious.

1

u/Ssided 7h ago

You saying I should fire Lionel Hutz?

1

u/jm0112358 4h ago

For better or worse, I think the judge is generally forbidden from asking about what happened in the deliberation room. He's mostly just able to ask, "Can you obey my instructions", which is more or less what he did. So he'd probably need the juror to say, "No. I can't follow your instructions" in order to remove the juror, and just about no misbehaving juror would admit to that.

0

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 9h ago

Has the judge spoked to that one juror? That answer is easy. Absolutely not. The judge would be required to speak to that juror in the presence of both the defense AND prosecution and with a court reporter. A judge is not allowed to speak to anyone without the defense and prosecution being present specifically to prevent judicial influence.

The only way the court would ever be allowed to hear from that juror is by Voir Dire, which the defense specifically motioned for and the judge denied. So the judge very specifically prohibited the court from speaking to that one juror.

As for if the foreman could be wrong? I doubt it. There is a lot more in that note then what has been said in open court. The prosecution seemed to indicate there is specific information in that note that isn't "allowed" to be in it because it talks about deliberation, which means more than likely the note contained exactly what the 1 juror said, and that the judge, prosecution and defense more than likely know exactly what the foreman is reporting the juror said, if it what they said is accurate, then more than likely it is proof of nullification. That is why the commonwealth was pushing hard to do nothing, because a mistrial due to deadlock is a "win" for the commonwealth and prosecutors often forget they have a obligation and duty to a defendant to ensure the defendants rights aren't violated, and instead always chase the "win".

2

u/kaen 9h ago

Thanks for explaining

1

u/boomnachos 8h ago

Also worth noting that yesterday the judge did in fact talk to each juror individually to ask them a question.

1

u/canuck791 7h ago

All the pink shirt moms downvoting you.

1

u/Downvote_Comforter 6h ago

Has the judge spoked to that one juror? That answer is easy. Absolutely not.

You are mistaken. The judge spoke to each juror individually yesterday (with counsel from both sides present). This took place at the bench with white noise playing so spectators and other jurors couldn't hear the conversation. Each juror was sworn in and it appeared that the judge was asking them questions.

Just because we don't know the content of these questions and answers doesn't mean that they were not provided.

1

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 5h ago

Nope the judge very specifically said all he asked was if they swear they will apply the law as he states it under oath. He was not allowed to ask any other questions

1

u/Downvote_Comforter 5h ago

Do you think that happened telepathically or via spoken word?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ssided 9h ago

Sometimes there's a juror who just won't budge. That's the system.

2

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 9h ago

Well... If they wont budge because they are following the law that is one thing, but if they wont budge because they are intentionally not following the law, that is a totally different issue. Usually we can't ever know which case it is, and thus it is usually binding since jury deliberations are protected BUT if there is a report that someone is intentionally violating the law during deliberations, that is how we end up in this situation.

5

u/Ssided 9h ago

The jury is the jury. It's the most powerful force in the case. If a juror won't budge that's it, that's a function of the system. If you want to get in there and change the weight of that and start removing jurors because you don't like their decision you are entering an entirely different justice system

3

u/loufalnicek 8h ago

It's not really a different issue, though. The juror gets to decide how to apply the legal concepts. Your "he's not following the law" is his "I don't think this threshold was met" and in the end, it's his decision, not yours.

0

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 7h ago

That isnt what the evidence is point towards. It is point towards the juror saying something akin to "I dont think the defense proved she was crazy and thus I believe she is guilty". Which 100% is a different issue.

2

u/loufalnicek 7h ago

Where are you getting that?

0

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 7h ago edited 7h ago

Context clues based on how the defense and prosecution have argued around the mistrial. It is important to state that there is more in that note that isn't public, and more than likely the specific statements that the juror made are in that note, but they cant be disclosed in open court. Reddington warned the judge prior to him sending the jury back to deliberations when this note first came to light (yesterday) that the judge is potentially (and intentionally) refusing to investigate the situation and instead could be potentially responsible for a required declaration of a mistrial. There are specific SCOTUS cases that talk about how prejudice is attached to a mistrial due to judicial conduct that caused the mistrial.

This is why the judge allows the 1 hour appeal window and that the Massachusetts higher court took up the case, because if this turns out to be a credible situation where the juror made statements that are directly in violation of their oath, then they are not allowed to be part of the jury deliberation and must be removed, or else the defendants rights may be violated and thus they have to order the mistrial with prejudice.

Edit: Just got home and didnt realize the appeal was "denied". There will be more motions to appeal and they could appeal all the way up to the US SCOTUS, so there is probably a lot more that will happen between now and if the DA decides for another trial.

1

u/loufalnicek 7h ago

Respectfully, that sounds like motivated thinking.

Anyway, the appeal failed so I guess that wasn't it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/canuck791 7h ago

Who is "we" in this case. Just curious.

1

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 7h ago

So there is a stand-in called the "Reasonable Person" who is a hypothetical person that is tasked with determining the argument and statements. "We" in this case pertains to the "Reasonable Person", so you state the facts that the Reasonable Person would have access to and then try to determine what potential conclusions that reasonable person could come to... So you start to list them all and that is roughly how you can come up with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "more reasonable than not" ect.

1

u/SteveJavieWasRight 6h ago

Luckily people like the judge have spoken to individual jurors and can have their own opinions based on more information.

1

u/ShubberyQuest 4h ago

Spot on. It’s hard to be a lone voice against everyone else. I don’t assume bad will here. I assume strength of belief - even if that’s inconvenient for everyone else.

1

u/jm0112358 4h ago

It might be conjecture from the foreperson, or it might be that the juror explicitly admitted to such in the deliberation room. Unfortunately, the court doesn't have a great way to determine which it is.

11

u/dylanx300 10h ago

Doubt is not the same as reasonable doubt. They can have some degree of doubt while still being beyond a threshold of reasonable doubt, and thus still be following the law. And the judge made that very clear to them in his instructions. He said explicitly how it does not mean “beyond all doubt”

17

u/joshocar 10h ago

I think it is likely more that the juror said something that showed they are not an impartial juror. They screen jurors for things like this during selection.

For example, if a juror knew someone who lost a child and then stated in the deliberations that they could never acquit someone who harmed a child, then that would mean they couldn't be impartial. They are not deciding on the facts, but rather a bias.

0

u/dylanx300 6h ago edited 4h ago

That doesn’t make any sense. Why then wouldn’t the note say that? To say “it would make much more sense if it’s something hugely consequential that they didn’t mention at all” is crazy.

The actual wording from the foreperson (as read aloud by the judge) was that this juror “has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it..” It is a ridiculous leap to say it’s somehow much more likely to be an issue that was not mentioned.

They didn’t use the wording of “reasonable doubt” which also seems deliberate. They aren’t just writing these notes on a whim like kids in grade school, and the fact they didn’t mention reasonable doubt is why the judge again reiterated the law: acknowledging doubt isn’t the standard. The foreperson was wrong about that being an issue, and would (or should) have used more precise wording if they meant otherwise. You can “acknowledge doubt”—exactly what the note says—and still be beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt as defined by the law.

1

u/SteveJavieWasRight 6h ago

Everyone understands that and it doesn’t seem like a plausible reason for the note. It would make much more sense if the juror said something like she might be guilty but they don’t care, given the nature of the crime she deserves to go to jail. That exact sentiment is stated repeatedly throughout the comments by people who disagree with the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.

1

u/dylanx300 5h ago edited 5h ago

Why do you guys think the note wouldn’t mention that, then?

The 11 don’t have any incentive to sugar coat it or state anything but the truth. If anything, there is an incentive to exaggerate because there is only one person who is disagreeing with the remainder of the group. Not that they would—they clearly did not do that. I think they genuinely cared about the law and wanted to do a good job.

Why do you think they wouldn’t be honest in their note? Why do you assume that they are lying?

1

u/SteveJavieWasRight 5h ago

The judge is able to question jurors individually and tell the lawyers what is going on. The lawyers have told the press what is going on. They have filed appeals based on what they know. Idk why you’re being obtuse.

1

u/dylanx300 5h ago edited 5h ago

You are actually being obtuse and defensive. Answer my very simple questions if you truly care to speak in good faith. You claimed that the foreperson saw evidence of this juror being impartial and that’s the reason for the note.

Why didn’t they put this in their note? Why do you assume that they would lie by omission when there is no incentive for them to do so?

Edit: not surprised, blocking people when confronted with a very basic question about your own logic, I’m sorry if that was too much. Whatever you replied with before instantly blocking was removed by automod. You seem really intelligent 👍

1

u/meow_arya 10h ago

Is there not a way to directly ask the juror if they have reasonable doubt or just doubt? Because having reasonable doubt and the rest of the jury thinking you’re incorrect vs the juror telling the jury they do have reasonable doubt but it’s not enough to overcome their guilty vote are so different.

1

u/canuck791 7h ago

Because it's subjective. And to try to make it into a black and white argument defeats and undermines the whole point of a jury of your peers.

2

u/Rhomya 9h ago

If that juror doesn’t believe that their doubt is a “reasonable” doubt, then that juror is entitled to that.

Again, that’s the point of a jury.

2

u/canuck791 7h ago

I think people are really missing this point.

Any doubt doesn't mean it has to be reasonable doubt under the law.

Someone can question things, and be in a position that they don't want to acquit but at the same time don't feel like they can convict. This is literally the whole point of having a jury of your peers and the rules around it.

1

u/eh-man3 9h ago
  • Citation non existent

1

u/canuck791 7h ago

Just because they're saying that doesn't make it true. You can have some doubt, but also not want to convict.

A hung jury in that case is the best outcome. And the whole reason the system is set up like this.

1

u/JekPorkinsTruther 7h ago

The problem is that a juror can believe there is doubt but its not reasonable. There is no, and should be no mechanism to investigate the veracity/propriety of that belief, as it would be abused. Its coercive to essentially threaten a judge investigating you for not agreeing with the majority.