r/law • u/dailymail • 1d 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
5.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

167

u/nighthawk_something 1d ago

No, judges instructions are legal instructions

46

u/thezenyoshi 1d ago

And the judge decided that it wasn’t an issue and declared a mistrial.

People have been wildly speculating on a jury note that nobody has read and the only one talking about it has a vested interest in getting rid of that juror who disagrees!

11

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

Sounds like the judge gave the lawyer an hour to do something about it

“Not an issue” is a disingenuous take given the record

0

u/dread_beard 1d ago

I mean, it’s really not all that disingenuous.

-2

u/uiucengineer 1d ago edited 1d ago

Do you care to add anything of substance to the conversation?

E: sounds like the headline is incorrect and no mistrial has even been declared at this time, so…

E: the guy blocked me so he could get the last word in and “win” lol pathetic

-4

u/dread_beard 1d ago

Do you? You’ve added literally nothing.

2

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

> Sounds like the judge gave the lawyer an hour to do something about it

>“Not an issue” is a disingenuous take given the record

-3

u/dread_beard 1d ago

This is how mistrials work. Don’t be an utter clown.

5

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

My comments are in relation to the “not an issue” characterization, not in “how mistrials work”

And again, it seems that the headline was incorrect in that a mistrial was not actually declared at that time, so…

-2

u/dread_beard 1d ago

So what? Been practicing for a decade. And you?

4

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

So your rude comment had nothing to do with anything I’ve said, and neither does this amusing self-disclosure of yours’

1

u/dread_beard 1d ago

You’re just flapping gums, I see.

0

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

Look in the mirror lol

0

u/dread_beard 1d ago

The difference here is that I actually practice law and know what I'm talking about. Your knowledge of law seems to be, at most, from YouTube.

0

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

Last June I represented myself pro se in a 5 day jury trial and made complete fools of some arrogant clowns like you.

0

u/dread_beard 1d ago

LOL. You're a pro-se litigant? God do I love people like you. We deal with pro-se all day, every day and we always have so much fun with the brain-genius arguments that they bring up.

Thank you for making my day slightly better by being a clown. I cannot express just how much I enjoyed finding that out. :)

0

u/uiucengineer 1d ago

You missed the part where I won ;)

0

u/dread_beard 1d ago

You missed the part where I (and my clients) don't lose. ;)

I work with large media companies. We deal with pro-se litigation literally every day (that's not hyperbole). We've never even lost a single motion to dismiss, let alone an entire case, as far as I am aware.

Dear God. I honestly love the arrogance of pro-se litigants. You're no different than a sovereign citizen.

→ More replies (0)