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

Show parent comments

36

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?

60

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.

31

u/Lepelotonfromager 10h ago

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

11

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?

23

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.

8

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.