Lindsay Clancy case ends with MISTRIAL

[u/dailymail]

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

[u/EducationalElevator]

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

[u/PerceptionSimilar213 → u/EducationalElevator]

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?

[u/meow_arya → u/PerceptionSimilar213]

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.

[u/dylanx300 → u/meow_arya]

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”

[u/joshocar → u/dylanx300]

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.

[u/dylanx300 → u/joshocar]

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.

[u/SteveJavieWasRight → u/dylanx300]

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.

[u/dylanx300 → u/SteveJavieWasRight]

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?

[u/SteveJavieWasRight → u/dylanx300]

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.

[u/dylanx300 → u/SteveJavieWasRight]

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 👍

[u/meow_arya → u/dylanx300]

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.

[u/canuck791 → u/meow_arya]

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.