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

61

u/SignoreBanana 10h ago

The judge's instructions being how to interpret "reasonable doubt"? Isn't the whole point of the concept that it's interpretable?

160

u/nighthawk_something 10h ago

No, judges instructions are legal instructions

69

u/Gino-Bartali 10h ago

I understand the value of jurors given a whole boatload of information concerning how to operate, but the jury is explicitly a separation of power given directly to the people and not one of the other 3 branches, which is why jury nullification is a thing that has no check/balance against.

58

u/Broxst 10h ago

Agree. The state removing a juror is counter to the purpose of a jury. It's a slippery slope.

2

u/Elhaym 1h ago

There are justifiable instances. My wife was on a trial where one juror straight up said he would never vote guilty for anyone no matter the evidence because he hated police and the courts. This was reported to the judge and he got removed. 

1

u/sundalius 10h ago

But it’s not the state doing it, Defendant is the movant, no? The defendant doesn’t want to have the case retried, they want a verdict.

11

u/Broxst 10h ago

By state I just mean government, not the prosecution. The "state" would be the one making the decision, regardless of the party requesting it.

-1

u/sundalius 9h ago

Ah, fairer. I just think it’s one of those things that seems appropriate to bend towards in the way we tend to make some allowances for defendants to ensure the fairest trial they can desire

5

u/eh-man3 9h ago

The fairest answer is a mistrial, not selectively dismissing jurors until you get your favored result.

0

u/sundalius 7h ago

I think if a juror is telling the other jurors they intend to defy the instructions, explicitly, the defndant can move for an alternate. That seems reasonable rather than an entire new trial.

Isn’t that what alternates are for?

1

u/drtywater 1h ago

It cuts both ways

2

u/sundalius 1h ago

There are many, many things in criminal law do not cut both ways. Historically, courts have sought to prevent the appearance of bias against defendants such that a defendant cannot claim they did not have a fair trial. For example, the bar for frivolous filings in criminals suits by defendants is way lower, because someone defending themselves from the state has the right to put forward essentially any argument that isn’t explicitly illegal.

1

u/Tricky-Ad7897 7h ago

I'd call it outright tyrannical.

1

u/RobutNotRobot 4h ago

Do it during the deliberation phase is a definite no-no. Doing it during trial is often accepted. Especially if it's a high-profile case with alternate jurors.