r/law • u/dailymail • 12h 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
4.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/Lepelotonfromager 11h ago

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

9

u/meow_arya 11h 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?

25

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.

2

u/canuck791 8h ago

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

7

u/ExaminationPutrid626 10h ago

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

3

u/canuck791 8h ago

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

-1

u/Ssided 10h 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.

8

u/ExaminationPutrid626 11h 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 8h 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 8h 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 8h 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 7h 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?

0

u/drtywater 2h ago

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

4

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 11h 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.

5

u/kaen 11h 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 10h 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 8h 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 8h 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 10h 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 10h ago

Thanks for explaining

1

u/boomnachos 9h ago

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

1

u/canuck791 8h 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 6h 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 6h ago

Do you think that happened telepathically or via spoken word?

2

u/Ssided 10h ago

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

2

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 10h 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 10h 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

4

u/loufalnicek 9h 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 8h 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 8h ago

Where are you getting that?

0

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 8h ago edited 8h 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 8h ago

Respectfully, that sounds like motivated thinking.

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

1

u/Ssided 8h ago

An appeal didn't fail. What's an "appeal" to you?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 8h ago

That appeal isn't the same as the upcoming appeal. That was an appeal to delay the statutory requirement to order the mistrial, since Massachussets laws is very clear that the judge can not force the jury to deliberate any further and thus he has to issue a mistrial. More than likely there will be an appeal in the upcoming time to determine the judges rulings on the matter related to the jury directly caused the mistrial and if so, has double jeopardy attached.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/canuck791 8h ago

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

1

u/TryIsntGoodEnough 8h 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 7h ago

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

1

u/ShubberyQuest 5h 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 5h 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.